Tone, I think the point in Paul opposing "So called free trade deals..." is that they're "so called". They aren't really free trade deals at all, they're laden down with all sorts of BS. My guess is that he supports real free trade, not the half-assed corporate give aways that comprise global free trade agreements at this point in time.
In the end I don't believe in free-trade-global-market-drink-the-kool-aid-while-destroying-all-indigeneous-cultures-around-the-world, but I still think that real free trade would be better than the crippled version that's in place now.
ot ... Ron Paul for president.
-
bigbadotis
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:31 pm
- Location: rochester, ny
- Contact:
I'll keep that in mind. Free trade can be seen as limiting the freedom of trade and bowing to foreign taxes and restrictions or it can be seen as a way to have common ground through agreed upon regulations.
He could be used to get democratic votes if he was someone's running mate.
Dunno though, I'm not the most politically savvy voteer out there.
He could be used to get democratic votes if he was someone's running mate.
Dunno though, I'm not the most politically savvy voteer out there.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Free trade has caused thousands of farmers in Chiapas, Mexico (among many other places) to pull their corn out of local markets- since they cannot compete with the U.S. prices.
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu
http://alonetone.com/glu
this all goes back to the main point- why vote? I have voted every other presidential election since I have been eligable- but I am finally understanding why people don't vote.
We are pretending the U.S. is a representative democracy- but it's not.
It's a corporate democracy-
We are pretending the U.S. is a representative democracy- but it's not.
It's a corporate democracy-
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu
http://alonetone.com/glu
it's a corporate democracy (fascist state) because people don't vote but corporations do!!glu wrote:this all goes back to the main point- why vote? I have voted every other presidential election since I have been eligable- but I am finally understanding why people don't vote.
We are pretending the U.S. is a representative democracy- but it's not.
It's a corporate democracy-
It's utterly ridiculous to think that you're going to make things go your way (IOW become better in your eyes) by not voting. If you don't vote you don't get your say, if you don't get your say decisions will not be made how you want them to be. Even if you do vote you might not win, that's life, we have to share the country.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
-
bigbadotis
- Posts: 836
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:31 pm
- Location: rochester, ny
- Contact:
Exactly. How can you even call it free trade and make noises about having an level competitive environment when the US gives over 10 billion dollars a year in subsidies to corn? It's a cruel, inhumane joke.Free trade has caused thousands of farmers in Chiapas, Mexico (among many other places) to pull their corn out of local markets- since they cannot compete with the U.S. prices.
I'm convinced when (not if, when) he doesn't win the Republican nomination he will run as an "Independent," and return to the Republican fold after the election.bigbadotis wrote:I don't understand. He's running as a Republican. He can't take swing votes. If he's in the actual final election, he -will- be the Republican candidate. He won't be helping another Republican candidate... it will just be him.My theory is that Ron Paul is this elections designated "Democratic vote catcher"
He's already publicly stated that he will not run if he doesn't get the Republican party nomination. Am I missing something?
http://www.myspace.com/kristallinethios4 wrote:One thing to remember is that you will probably never ever get to experience your own music the way you experience other people's music.
DUDE -- Don't you get it- I am in Texas!!!Tone Deft wrote:it's a corporate democracy (fascist state) because people don't vote but corporations do!!glu wrote:this all goes back to the main point- why vote? I have voted every other presidential election since I have been eligable- but I am finally understanding why people don't vote.
We are pretending the U.S. is a representative democracy- but it's not.
It's a corporate democracy-
It's utterly ridiculous to think that you're going to make things go your way (IOW become better in your eyes) by not voting. If you don't vote you don't get your say, if you don't get your say decisions will not be made how you want them to be. Even if you do vote you might not win, that's life, we have to share the country.
I HAVE NO VOICE HERE>Winner takes all electorate system needs to go- It's utterly ridiculous that Bush received all 52 (?) electorates in Texas even though 25% voted for Kerry back in 04. The system sucks and those in power do not want to change it.
Voting for president is just silly- you are acting like voting for president actually can influence the outcome. Come on mang, we both know better! I did vote against Bush Co-
OK FINE I will go back to pretending that voting makes a difference and cast an independant vote to some guy with no money-wooohoo go voice!!!
local elections is a different story though.
sorry for the mood- it's saturday, I am at work when I should be cutting up Bush samples for my next DJ Dubya track.
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu
http://alonetone.com/glu
I dig...glu wrote:DUDE -- Don't you get it- I am in Texas!!!
Winner takes all electorate system needs to go- It's utterly ridiculous that Bush received all 52 (?) electorates in Texas even though 25% voted for Kerry back in 04. The system sucks and those in power do not want to change it.
Voting for president is just silly- you are acting like voting for president actually can influence the outcome. Come on mang, we both know better! I did vote against Bush Co-
OK FINE I will go back to pretending that voting makes a difference and cast an independant vote to some guy with no money-wooohoo go voice!!!
local elections is a different story though.
sorry for the mood- it's saturday, I am at work when I should be cutting up Bush samples for my next DJ Dubya track.
Being a liberal in San Francisco is the opposite, shit just goes my way. Do I want the liberal for mayor or the REALLY liberal guy? Funny though, my boss is a huge Michael Savage fan, pisses me off but oh well.
Hang in there, we love Texas liberals, you're on the front lines where we need more support. Thank you.
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
send me a thank you card if you really care! 
When I graduate I am either moving out of the country or to a swing state.
When I graduate I am either moving out of the country or to a swing state.
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu
http://alonetone.com/glu
+1,000,000
The sheep need better programming!
The sheep need better programming!
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu
http://alonetone.com/glu
A good read IMHO.
-------------
The Swan Song for the Democratic Party
By Mike Whitney
The Democrats did us all a favor by giving Bush his Iraq war-money. After all, the Dems have supported the war from the get-go, so why not expose them as the hypocrites they really are?
The truth is, no one is really surprised by Friday's vote. We have one party in America—the War Party---the Dems are merely a junior partner in that system.
It boggles the mind that so many so-called "liberals" continue to be hoodwinked by the Democratic Party. After all, what do they offer---a slight boost in the hourly wage? Better management of foreign massacres?!?
Okay---I’ll concede that much.
But, what else? The Democrats are even giving ground on a women’s "right to choose", which, up until now, had been their defining issue. Now even that is eroding.
So, what do the Democrats really stand for?
Where are the "principles"?
This is not the party of F.D.R., my friend. This is the party of Bill Clinton, the Master of Triangulation. Clinton was nothing more than the flip-side of George Bush. The bombing of Belgrade was as big a crime as Shock and Awe--although it was cleverly masked behind Clinton’s “Aw shucks” charm and the ever-compliant media.
Clinton sold out the American worker by passing NAFTA. He dismantled the social safety net with his Welfare Reform. He destroyed the last vestiges of the free media by signing the Telecommunications Act. And he revealed his utter lack of principle by refusing to sign the Land Mines Treaty---a document that would have saved the lives of thousands of children every year.
Smart guy---no principles.
Clinton never did anything that wasn’t politically calculated. Hell, he probably had his slide-rule out during his visits with Monica to figure out the exact amount of gratification he could have without feeling guilty. Sure, he was bright and good natured but, his critics are also right--he was utterly devoid of principle. And yet, this is the Democratic Party’s “big hero”; a man who has become the shining example for the future leaders in the party.
Gadzooks--what a disaster!
The Democratic Party is not the party that people think it is. This is the party of Rahm Emanuel and the DLC. The leadership is unwaveringly pro-war, pro Israel, and pro free trade. There's no room for anything else. The Democrats have no intention withdrawing from Iraq. That’s just speculation on the part of blindly-optimistic voters who still believe that their voices will be heard. They won't be heard. The Democrats will NEVER get us out of Iraq.
The real position of the Dems on Iraq is even MORE IMMORAL than the Republicans. They want to redeploy outside of the country while reducing the number of troops on the ground. In other words, they want to build a “sustainable” model for stealing the world’s second largest petroleum reserves.
It's a more discreet strategy than Bush’s bloody “surge", but is any less immoral?
It would be better for the country if the Democratic Party just called it quits and disbanded right now. (although, they appear to be doing a pretty good job of that already)
The party is a bigger obstacle to progressive reform and systemic change than the Republicans.
As long as the Dems continue to trick people into believing that they represent substantive change--or even a serious defense of their vital economic interests--the charade will persist and things will get worse.
Real progressive reform should address the central issues facing, not only Americans, but the entire world---nuclear proliferation, global warming, peak oil, population growth, food supply and disease.
Reform isn't even part of the Democrat's agenda. Like their Republican counterparts, they are primarily focused on enriching corporate donors, facilitating free trade, and chasing shadowy Islamic groups through Central Asia and the Middle East.
Real reform would restore progressive taxation by reinstating the brackets that were used during the early 1950s; that is, everyone making over $200,000 per year ($1 million by today’s standards) pays 93% of their earnings! Without a concerted effort to narrow the massive wealth gap through redistribution—the country will continue along its present path to tyranny. Those who have benefited most from the security, infrastructure and prosperity provided by state should naturally pay more. That is the fundamental tenet of progressive taxation and it is essential if we want to strengthen the middle class and “raise all boats” (as the Republicans like to say)
Besides, who's going to lose sleep over taxing the rich?
A progressive platform should also include a plan to nationalize the oil industry. The record profits from oil production should be going into infrastructure, education and alternate fuels---not fattening the foreign banks accounts of obscenely rich oil moguls. In an age of resource scarcity, we cannot allow the market to decide who will get access to the energy that everyone needs to maintain minimal standards of comfort.
We’ve already seen how big oil is willing to use our children as cannon fodder in their wars of aggression. We’ve also seen how they work tirelessly to confuse the public on crucial issues such as global warming by pumping millions of dollars into bogus science and misleading public relations campaigns. The oil industry operates without a conscience putting its bottom line above the very survival of the species. The best thing to do is "return the favor" by seizing the industry—Hugo Chavez style---and putting it to work for the people it is supposed to serve. If the oil executives still choose to continue the fight for Iraqi oil; we should provide them with sidearms and Kevlar vests and turn them lose in Baghdad. Let them fend for themselves---everyone else comes home.
The country doesn’t need two War Parties run by the same establishment elites. The present system is a fraud which marginalizes 95% of the American people and makes democracy impossible. What we need is a Labor Party that addresses the issues which are critical to working class people. Labor Party affiliation should be the equivalent of union membership—providing a clear statement of support for pensions, universal health care, maternity leave, yearly wage increases tied to productivity, profit sharing, collective bargaining rights and 50% representation on all corporate boards. The goal of a Labor Party should not merely be to live off the scraps from the corporate table, but to share political power in shaping the country’s economic agenda. That’s the only way that we can balance class-based interests and avoid unnecessary future conflicts.
Anyone who thinks politics is just about “making money” is nuts. Political parties emerge to take power---and that should be the objective of Labor---raw political power. Nothing else will do.
What’s needed is a broad coalition of leftist organizations coalescing in a party that represents the objectives of working people.
Labor needs a voice in government and the Democrats are not that voice.
By capitulating to Bush, the Democratic Party has cut the ground out from beneath itself and hastened its own demise. Good riddance. Now, let’s push the rusty hulk out of the road and go forward.
-------------
The Swan Song for the Democratic Party
By Mike Whitney
The Democrats did us all a favor by giving Bush his Iraq war-money. After all, the Dems have supported the war from the get-go, so why not expose them as the hypocrites they really are?
The truth is, no one is really surprised by Friday's vote. We have one party in America—the War Party---the Dems are merely a junior partner in that system.
It boggles the mind that so many so-called "liberals" continue to be hoodwinked by the Democratic Party. After all, what do they offer---a slight boost in the hourly wage? Better management of foreign massacres?!?
Okay---I’ll concede that much.
But, what else? The Democrats are even giving ground on a women’s "right to choose", which, up until now, had been their defining issue. Now even that is eroding.
So, what do the Democrats really stand for?
Where are the "principles"?
This is not the party of F.D.R., my friend. This is the party of Bill Clinton, the Master of Triangulation. Clinton was nothing more than the flip-side of George Bush. The bombing of Belgrade was as big a crime as Shock and Awe--although it was cleverly masked behind Clinton’s “Aw shucks” charm and the ever-compliant media.
Clinton sold out the American worker by passing NAFTA. He dismantled the social safety net with his Welfare Reform. He destroyed the last vestiges of the free media by signing the Telecommunications Act. And he revealed his utter lack of principle by refusing to sign the Land Mines Treaty---a document that would have saved the lives of thousands of children every year.
Smart guy---no principles.
Clinton never did anything that wasn’t politically calculated. Hell, he probably had his slide-rule out during his visits with Monica to figure out the exact amount of gratification he could have without feeling guilty. Sure, he was bright and good natured but, his critics are also right--he was utterly devoid of principle. And yet, this is the Democratic Party’s “big hero”; a man who has become the shining example for the future leaders in the party.
Gadzooks--what a disaster!
The Democratic Party is not the party that people think it is. This is the party of Rahm Emanuel and the DLC. The leadership is unwaveringly pro-war, pro Israel, and pro free trade. There's no room for anything else. The Democrats have no intention withdrawing from Iraq. That’s just speculation on the part of blindly-optimistic voters who still believe that their voices will be heard. They won't be heard. The Democrats will NEVER get us out of Iraq.
The real position of the Dems on Iraq is even MORE IMMORAL than the Republicans. They want to redeploy outside of the country while reducing the number of troops on the ground. In other words, they want to build a “sustainable” model for stealing the world’s second largest petroleum reserves.
It's a more discreet strategy than Bush’s bloody “surge", but is any less immoral?
It would be better for the country if the Democratic Party just called it quits and disbanded right now. (although, they appear to be doing a pretty good job of that already)
The party is a bigger obstacle to progressive reform and systemic change than the Republicans.
As long as the Dems continue to trick people into believing that they represent substantive change--or even a serious defense of their vital economic interests--the charade will persist and things will get worse.
Real progressive reform should address the central issues facing, not only Americans, but the entire world---nuclear proliferation, global warming, peak oil, population growth, food supply and disease.
Reform isn't even part of the Democrat's agenda. Like their Republican counterparts, they are primarily focused on enriching corporate donors, facilitating free trade, and chasing shadowy Islamic groups through Central Asia and the Middle East.
Real reform would restore progressive taxation by reinstating the brackets that were used during the early 1950s; that is, everyone making over $200,000 per year ($1 million by today’s standards) pays 93% of their earnings! Without a concerted effort to narrow the massive wealth gap through redistribution—the country will continue along its present path to tyranny. Those who have benefited most from the security, infrastructure and prosperity provided by state should naturally pay more. That is the fundamental tenet of progressive taxation and it is essential if we want to strengthen the middle class and “raise all boats” (as the Republicans like to say)
Besides, who's going to lose sleep over taxing the rich?
A progressive platform should also include a plan to nationalize the oil industry. The record profits from oil production should be going into infrastructure, education and alternate fuels---not fattening the foreign banks accounts of obscenely rich oil moguls. In an age of resource scarcity, we cannot allow the market to decide who will get access to the energy that everyone needs to maintain minimal standards of comfort.
We’ve already seen how big oil is willing to use our children as cannon fodder in their wars of aggression. We’ve also seen how they work tirelessly to confuse the public on crucial issues such as global warming by pumping millions of dollars into bogus science and misleading public relations campaigns. The oil industry operates without a conscience putting its bottom line above the very survival of the species. The best thing to do is "return the favor" by seizing the industry—Hugo Chavez style---and putting it to work for the people it is supposed to serve. If the oil executives still choose to continue the fight for Iraqi oil; we should provide them with sidearms and Kevlar vests and turn them lose in Baghdad. Let them fend for themselves---everyone else comes home.
The country doesn’t need two War Parties run by the same establishment elites. The present system is a fraud which marginalizes 95% of the American people and makes democracy impossible. What we need is a Labor Party that addresses the issues which are critical to working class people. Labor Party affiliation should be the equivalent of union membership—providing a clear statement of support for pensions, universal health care, maternity leave, yearly wage increases tied to productivity, profit sharing, collective bargaining rights and 50% representation on all corporate boards. The goal of a Labor Party should not merely be to live off the scraps from the corporate table, but to share political power in shaping the country’s economic agenda. That’s the only way that we can balance class-based interests and avoid unnecessary future conflicts.
Anyone who thinks politics is just about “making money” is nuts. Political parties emerge to take power---and that should be the objective of Labor---raw political power. Nothing else will do.
What’s needed is a broad coalition of leftist organizations coalescing in a party that represents the objectives of working people.
Labor needs a voice in government and the Democrats are not that voice.
By capitulating to Bush, the Democratic Party has cut the ground out from beneath itself and hastened its own demise. Good riddance. Now, let’s push the rusty hulk out of the road and go forward.
