Looks like sexism didn’t die with Obama’s election.

@Judith: What is that supposed to mean? She was defeated by another woman, you dope.

Jed Clampett

Good day all!! a very good day indeed.
Even though this can qualify as a major ‘thumping’, I’d hate to rest on my laurels. To me, this was the only possible result after the fiasco our government has become over the last decade and marks the first step in a long journey of recovery hampered by the greedy and unethical in commerce and finance. Hopefully a mass of convictions of bad actors will force others into acting in the appropriate manner. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately (remains to be seen), the democrats weren’t given a veto proof majority in both houses. Maybe that will be a good thing, forces congress to work ‘across the aisle’ and be somewhat civil to each other instead of what has been seen of late. Listening to Mr Bohner and his ‘keyword’ laden speech, I can foresee that Republicans will still be the obstructionist, obstacles to positive advancement, that they have proven themselves to be of late.
In the meantime, let’s enjoy this ‘one little victory’ while we can and prepare ourselves for another democrat led period of prosperity accentuated by obstructionist judges and a republican party intent on blocking any meaningful progress that might be a threat to their dreams of power and influence for personal gain.

Peace

It would appear that if Ralph (The Fugue) Nader had stayed home, Obama might have won MO as well.

For a NonCon like myself, Nader might well merit the ‘A-Hole Of The Century’ for TWO centuries.

Jed Clampett

Sorry to not agree with you on that note DD.
Nader has been fighting for a long time for things that Americans need, at great cost and peril to himself.
As a result, there has been a smear campaign against him by the elites that fear his struggle for equality and common sense as a threat to their power and economic control.
I for one admire his efforts and perseverance in the defense of the public, not to mention his skills in being so successful against the power hungry.
Whether he siphoned votes away from Sen Obama or McCain is merely speculation propagated by those who wish to discredit him, perhaps those voters voted for him because they wouldn’t have voted for either of the mainstream party candidates anyway, just to make a statement. Had they not had that CHOICE they probably would have stayed home.
Again, falling for smear campaigns designed to discredit a good man who is a greater patriot than most of those wearing a symbolic lapel pin to convince the public to the fallacy that THEY are the patriotic ones, is not something a free thinker falls for.
Third and fourth viable parties would be just what this country needs to have the appropriate checks and balances the founding fathers foresaw for us and would hopefully give power and representation back to the people rather than the corporations.

Peace

Jed Clampett

This quote by him kind of sums it up for me…

“Voting for a candidate of one’s choice is a Constitutional right, and the Democrats who are asking me not to run are, without question, seeking to deny the Constitutional rights of voters who are, by law, otherwise free to choose to vote for me.”

If the democrats are such defenders of democracy why are there still so many irregularities in elections? Half hearted efforts are easily discerned. Why have they not done more in congress to reduce our dependence on centralized energy systems.
Had they worked, actually tried to do something, to stop Bush’s war in the last two years since they got their mandate, I might have a bit more confidence in them, unfortunately I know too much now to be easily deluded.

Do you know what finally ended the Vietnam conflict?
What was the key that actually brought our troops back despite years of public protest, disobedience and even violence?
It was the fact that military OFFICERS were starting to refuse their orders and the brutality of the bombing raids on the population of Vietnam. They feared that some of those officers would do what the founding fathers required of us and start a violent revolution, all the ingredients were there.
Just exactly how were the Vietnamese peasants, who had lived for decades under the occupation of a greater military power that was stealing the fruits of their labor, a threat to American liberty?
You guys were around then, how was it pushed on the public back then? Was it that the ideology of working as a community was too dangerous to the power structure in the US which predicated a society that placed it’s power and resources in the hands of greedy, selfish individuals without empathy or sense of community, brotherhood or humanity?

Peace

Yes, Nader DID do a lot of good. Somewhere along the line HE became more important than the issues. If he was/is so altruistic, why didn’t he ’sponsor’ someone else? No Jed, I fear his ego kept growing while other parts of his anatomy gave out.

As for Viet Nam, it was a response to the Red Scare of the 50s ‘enhanced’ by the thuggery of Joe McCarthy. Post McCarthy, there was much paranoia about Russia (arguably, still is)and when Viet Nam became a surrogate of that country, this country saw Viet Nam as a contest of the two ideologies.

When ‘our’ Vietnamese couldn’t beat ‘their’ Vietnamese it became a matter of pride. Viet Nam is a classic example of the old saw, “When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s difficult to remember your original intention was to drain the swamp.”

Jed Clampett

Seems strange, why would you ’sponsor’ someone else when you are running yourself? Wouldn’t that be like saying, ‘hey vote for me, but this other guy is good too’? I guess if he had done that he would have been derided as inconsistent or unconfident.

The whole run for the presidency is a battle of the cult of personality. It doesn’t seem to bother anyone that all other politicians do just that, how is Mr Nader held to a different standard?

Right, the ‘red scare’. A SCARE tactic designed to terrorize people into acting from the gut out of fear, haphazardly, rather than logically and deliberately from the intellect; a tactic designed to gain support for foolish, selfish, bellicose policies. I thought America was predicated on the freedom of ideas and responsibility in action, self control if you will; what makes Americans think they are so much better than other humans that they would impose THEIR ideology on others through force of arms?
What about ‘com.munism’ was so scary that a whole nation could be manipulated into persecuting their own countrymen for their political BELIEFS? American’s didn’t bother understanding com.munism or soc.ialism, they merely reacted like trained pets to the commands of the media and a congress that was, and still is, controlled by corporations; many of those most powerful being the ones involved in bellicose endeavors.
If you think it was difficult to end THAT war, just imagine how much more difficult it will be now that the ‘basic training’ has been improved in order to reduce independent thinking and foster submission to authority while much of the military equipment is being automated, roboticized.
I heard a woman who is an activist in Guatemala that works with gang members elucidate something for me. A person who is submissive will follow leadership without question or second thought. A person who is obedient follows leadership because it is something he believes in and supports, and if he considers that leadership’s intentions have changed, will quickly drop his allegiance. I think Americans are more submissive than obedient, and certainly very few are truly independent… then again, that is true of a large component of humanity.

What truly astounds me is how this nation, a nation that purportedly believes in the freedom of ideas and ideology would send their children to a foreign land to murder and die in order to prevent others from following or succeeding in implementing a competing ideology. Or prevent others form having a robust commerce and actually having that type of ideology be prosperous and beneficial to it’s populace. Soc.ialism is an ideology that is a danger only to the established power structure in this ‘free nation’ and to those who insist that giving them control of the resources without any responsibility is the appropriate way to rule, just ask the French.
Americans had no business going into Vietnam in the first place to take over the French colony that was revolting against it’s enslavers, regardless of the label the rebel leadership had used for it’s beliefs. Why didn’t the US rile against France, since Ho Chi Min learned his ideology there? Or why didn’t they actually help the Vietnamese people liberate themselves from French oppression?

One might argue that if Americans had been given the option of intelligent, objective debate on the issue, they might have realized that it’s easier to drain a swamp without getting in with the alligators. In fact, unless you are as skilled as Steve Erwin, getting into the swamp WITH the alligators is folly of the highest degree. Unless you are in truth alligators in ’sheep’s clothing’.
What is really sad is that America hasn’t learned it’s lesson and continues allowing itself to be manipulated, doing the same thing, expecting different results. I believe Mr Einstein defined that as insanity.

Peace

All true, or pretty much so. I meant that Nader would not run, rather push for someone that shared his ideals. The fact that HE ran mitigates, for me, the ‘nobility’ of his acts. He WANTED to be Prez. He coveted the power, again, to me, rather than espoused a position.

Anyway, Americans are not unique. All peoples share the same picadillos as we. The ’sadness’ is that all humanity has failed to learn from the lessons of the past.

That people choose to be ignorant, nay, FLAUNT their ignorance, is astounding to me. And therein lies the problem.

I’m hearing ‘complaints’ that are both strange and revealing in Day I of Obama’s presidency. Locals are saying they don’t CARE about the economy. That abortion, the military and the fact that Obama is ‘muslim’ is why they REALLY voted against him.

In truth, if he wasn’t black, these same people could give a shiit about those things.

My concern about Obama’s ability to be elected has immediately been replaced with a concern that this country won’t give him a chance.

If Congress works with him he can turn things around. If the country supports him, he can do it rather quickly.

I’d REALLY like to see this country, not Obama, take back the jobs we sent overseas and eliminate such crap as off-shore accounts, etc. Not likely.

Jed Clampett

Wrong, he knows he doesn’t have a cat’s chance in roomfull of rocking chairs, what he’s doing is keeping the idea of wrestling control away from the established thieves alive. He knows he can’t possibly win, what running does is actually give him a platform to try to expose the parties in control and to promote the issues important to him.
I thought it was quite telling that he had a meeting with Kerry in which he was asked to not run. He presented Kerry with 20 issues that were important to him, told him if he espoused just three of those in his campaign Ralph would not run. Unfortunately Kerry declined, that’s why I actually admire what he’s doing.

I agree that humanity as a whole has failed to learn it’s lessons… or rather, repeatedly are misled by those who have their own selfish interest in the forefront and enjoy economic supremacy. Americans are, however, unique in that they seem to be so incapable of objective self reflection. Also in their increasingly more evident lack of proper education in social matters. I’ve traveled quite extensively outside the states and nowhere except perhaps china have I met people who so proudly embody rudeness and selfishness and as you say, FLAUNT their ignorance so proudly. Perhaps it’s because it pretty much destroyed it’s native cultures rather than assimilating them as other parts of the world have done. Genocide harms the perpetrators in different ways than the oppressed, but they are harmed nonetheless. It’s nature’s way.

I share your concern for the success of the Obama administration. There are great forces lined up against him and those forces have been allowed carte blanche to increase their power over the last decade. It won’t be easy.
Here in TX, the racism is more overt, in my opinion it comes from fear of retribution, a tacit acknowledgment of their own guilt in the mistreatment of those humans; then again, Americans are unique in their ability to find scapegoats for their guilt and for blinding themselves to the ugly truth.

I hope that Sen Obama can actually be a strong, intelligent leader that changes the current paradigm, like you say, it’s difficult if hot impossible given the current balance of power. Perhaps he can help put us on the right path. Like you, I would like the nation to actually start working for the benefit of mankind rather than for a particular man, party or secret organization.

Peace

DD

Say what you want about Nader, he believes in Democracy and hates the stranglehold of the two-party system. It might not be such a big deal for those in the tank for Democrats 100% of the time (or Republicans for that matter), but those who actually have some perspective on the political flaws of this country (aka people who can think for themselves), we appreciate what Nader is trying to do.

CCo,
I am so happy to be in the position of completely agreeing with everything in your post about Nader. Sorry Dennis.

All,

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If Nader had kept his ego in check, there would have been no Bushney.

Now, there are some among you who will say that a vote for Nader is NOT taking a vote from a Dem. While literally true, that ‘opinion’ is merely that. I think all would agree that ’some’ Nader votes would have gone for a Dem, the question becomes how many.

Cco, you STILL don’t get it. I am AGAINST the type of conservatism we’ve witnessed the past 30 years or so. I in no way associate myself with anyone else but confess that Obama appears to have a chance to win my esteem.

I am singularly NonCon and my behavior springs from that source. If the cons EVER shown some signs of humanity and compassion then I am ready and willing to embrace them. But I confess, I lack optimism. As long as ignorance, greed and selfishness is their mantra, they have an enemy in me.

I have, since the time of Nixon, witnessed a steady decline in the morals (socially), scruples and intentions of the ultra-Right. The rest of the Right follow their ‘leaders’ without question or thought.

Ralph Nader is twice the man as I for all the good he has done. For sake of a statement, in my opinion, he let loose the dogs of hell.

Nader’s done much good for our country and is a hero.

He’s also an egomaniac.

I understand the argument for voting for Nader, and even agree with it to a point. However, to be a “liberal” and vote Nader when Obama represented so much positive change, is inconceivable to me.

I guess what I mean is, there was so much at stake in this election and to make a “protest” vote for the sole purpose of making some sort of “point” was utterly meaningless. Nobody cares about your protest vote and it didn’t do any good for anybody. And, in fact, could’ve only done harm if McCain had won.

Jed Clampett

In my opinion, the way the ballots were designed and the votes for Buchanan had much more impact than Nader on getting Bushney into power.
Let’s not ignore a supreme court loaded with partisan obstructionist judges that decided to ignore the will of the people by stopping the vote counts and effectively GIVING the presidency to Bushney.
Neither should we ignore the totally flawed electoral system that would allow the fate of a nation of 300 million people to be determined by 527 votes rather than a clear majority of at least 1%.
Then there is the electoral college and a plurality of methods and systems of voting that would prevent even Jimmi Carter’s election monitors from observing because we don’t meet the most basic standards for fair elections.

So to blame the rise of an anti-christ into the highest political office on the planet on one man and his ego is somewhat disingenuous at best. It is the result of a sustained effort by those with selfishness and dreams of personal and group power to weaken our nation rather than strengthen it.

Peace

Jed Clampett

BTW- the road to hell is not paved with good intentions. good intentions, and actions, is what converts hell into paradise. To say good intentions is what leads to bad results is a term designed to discourage others from making an effort to spread the kindness of their hearts and inspiring more to do the same.

The road to hell is paved with ill intent. selfish actions, and most of all, apathy. Ever heard the saying… “all that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to remain silent(and disinterested)”?

Bad actions and actors will always be with us, that is the test. How we react to them and their deeds determine whether we are worthy of prosperity, happiness, abundance and intelligence.

Peace