Question

[Kramer]

deliberately annoying as well as a total imbecile

How is that possible? If I am an imbecile how could I be DELIBERATELY annoying. Wouldn't I have to be pretty smart to be DELIBERATELY annoying? A retard has too low an IQ.

So one again you are wrong.

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I feel he is better by far than McCain would have been, and if not for the obstructionists, I think we would be better off than we are.>>

I guess one of the major differences between us is that you don't seem to attach the same degree of significance as I do to the extra-judicial murder of a citizen.  To me, it's a deal-breaker, a red line that's been crossed.  Ditto, though to a lesser degree, the refusal to prosecute war criminals despite clear-cut international obligations to do so, the abrogation of habeas corpus rights and the ongoing wars.

You seem to think that the country can still struggle along with him, on the "lesser of two evils" theory.  I think that Occupy Wall Street is coming around to the view that "lesser of two evils" is irrelevant when the degree of difference is marginal and a much greater result would arise from doing away with BOTH evils (and the system they represent) and making a fresh start.

And BTW, yes, if the choice were between Hitler and the more pragmatic Himmler, both representing the same constituency, but Hitler crazier and likelier to bring the whole temple down on his own head, I would pick him over Himmler, given the choice.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not think we will be given a choice between Heinrich and Adolf.

I am all for fresh starts, but this country has never done one. If it did, it would be like Burma or Mongolia having a space program, or Netanyahu investing in Hormel Hams, Inc.

We are not revolutionaries in this country, not anymore. All change will be transitional, and even mild transitions will be labeled "extremist".

[Michael Tee]

<<I do not think we will be given a choice between Heinrich and Adolf.>>

That'd narrow it down for you.  In your first analogy, it was Adolf and Obama.

<<I am all for fresh starts, but this country has never done one.>>

The New Deal came close enough.  The post-Vietnam era made some major reforms as well.

<<If it did, it would be like Burma or Mongolia having a space program, or Netanyahu investing in Hormel Hams, Inc.>>

http://www.mongolianviews.com/2011/03/mongolias-historical-space-flight.html
Mongolia already HAS a space program - - and you wouldn't wanna know what Netanyahu invests in.  Hormel Hams would be the LEAST surprising of his investment picks.

<<We are not revolutionaries in this country, not anymore. All change will be transitional, and even mild transitions will be labeled "extremist".>>

You're probably right.  Things will have to get a lot worse before they can become better.

[Plane]

<<Obama is trying to do a good job, and has been stopped at every turn by the Republican'ts who only want his downfall and have said so from the start. They do not want this country to succeed. I do and so does Obama.>>

How's the country going to "succeed" when it's led by a President who murders his fellow citizens without due process of law, effectively shitting all over the Constitution?  Who attacks Libya without any Congressional authorization, again shitting all over the Constitution?  The guy's a former law professor, yet he argues that he can't prosecute torturers DESPITE THE OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE IMPOSED BY UNCAT, A BINDING LAWFUL TREATY OBLIGATION, on the excuse that such a prosecution would be "looking backward!"  What criminal prosecution in the world doesn't have to "look backward?"

The protestors occupying Wall Street are starting to see what you still don't - - that Obama is part of the problem.  You can't keep electing the same shills for the same corporate paymasters, and somehow expect that this time, now, things are finally going to be different.  That is just crazy.  The Republicans and the Democrats are both getting their water from the same well.   Re-electing Obama won't change a God-damned thing.  Cain is actually the better choice because he will fuck things up worse than Obama ever could.  Things have to get worse before they can become better.  Think of Cain as GW Bush II.  It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.

  Wow , do you think that there could be a contrarian (99%) Herman Cain voter?

[Plane]

  It's only when the country is driven to the brink of ruin that any real change can come about.

===================================================
Now there's a thought. Elect Hitler, because the utter destruction of the Reich must occur before the New Germany can arise: that seems to be your message. I would prefer not to be in Dresden or Berlin for the utter destruction part.

I won't be voting for Cain. Sorry.

I don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I feel he is better by far than McCain would have been, and if not for the obstructionists, I think we would be better off than we are.

I blame the conservative Democrats for failing to approve of Obama's program, notably health care, for not getting more done the first two years. Obama lacked clout. He was not Lyndon Johnson, he was not Hillary Clinton. I would have preferred either to him, but they were not running.

   Have you a specific example of this obstructionism?
   I think you are being very general because the ice is thin underfoot.

[Michael Tee]

 <<Wow , do you think that there could be a contrarian (99%) Herman Cain voter?>>

99%?  Nah, the division of the RNC responsible for stealing elections would never permit such a high margin of victory.  Might call the results into suspicion.  78% would do just fine.

On a more serious note, I'm just hoping that those who were fooled the first time into supporting Obama just sit on their hands till the election is over - - no canvassing, no speechifying, no internet campaigning, no getting out the vote and no voting.  Obama would still have the votes of those of his black supporters who voted for him only for the colour of his skin; Cain couldn't peel off very many of them because they know a Tom when they see one.  But without the help, support or votes of his most idealistic younger supporters, Obama would be unable to beat Cain's GOP and/or TP supporters at the polls and he'd vanish into the dustbin of history. 

[Plane]

  Now why would you want that?

   Barak H. Obama is the most foreign oriented and left winged president we have ever elected , I don't think it possible that the American people will ever elect anyone further Left nor anyone more popular overseas.

   I credit his Lefty orientation with his really bad choices , of course I do< I think we were too far bumped to the left by George Bush one and two.

    Would you want another Clinton? That could happen.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would be happy for Hillary to be president. But dorks like Cantor and McConnell would oppose everything she tried to do as well. The main problem we have is the asshole Republicans.

[Plane]

I would be happy for Hillary to be president. But dorks like Cantor and McConnell would oppose everything she tried to do as well. The main problem we have is the asshole Republicans.

  This is totally invalidated by two (count them two) years of unified government with a very liberal President and both houses of Congress in his party.

    Your problem should be with Nancy Peloshi who was more scary than competant and prone to say that the bills shoudl be passed just to find out what was in them, easyer I suppose, than reading them first.

[Michael Tee]

<<Barak H. Obama is the most foreign oriented and left winged president we have ever elected. . . >>

No he's not.   Not even close.  The most "foreign oriented" Prez was probably FDR, simply because the alliances forged in WWII required his close attention to foreign affairs in all corners of the globe, and work closely on the shape of the post-war world including the UN with the leaders of the USSR, the UK, France and China, to name just a few.  The "most left winged" Prez was probably also FDR, who left a solid network of regulatory reforms and social benefits behind him that future politicians would have to work their butts off to dismantle.  Obama, on the contrary, is all left-wing talk and no left-wing action,  and whereas FDR said that he welcomed the hatred of the upper class and wore it as a badge of honour, Obama again and again tries to compromise with them and ends up giving away the store to them.  "Left-wing" my ass - - he's a sell-out artist, pure and simple.


 << . . . I don't think it possible that the American people will ever elect anyone further Left >>

LMFAO - - well, at least ya got THAT right.  Now that the ruling class has both parties bought and paid for, owns the MSM and the judiciary, it's hard to see how anyone can be elected to ANY federal political office who isn't already solidly in the pockets of the special interests.  One of the major themes that I see is that the elections are clearly a farce and can solve nothing.  I would like to say that the only solution is the Revolution, but I see a different kind of consensus coming out of the Occupy Wall Street etc. movements, and that is that only direct mass action (a.k.a. civil disobedience) can force change on the system. 

Yesterday or today, I posted a very powerful message from Prof. Jeffrey Sachs dealing with the tactic of civil disobedience and explaining how in the absence of any real hope of change through the electoral system, it would be the protestors' best hope.  I hope that the protestors and their supporters like Prof. Sachs are correct and that they will attain their goals through civil disobedience only.  However, personally, I remain committed to the belief that only violent and massive revolutionary action can break the stranglehold of the special interests on the U.S. government and return government to the people.  Unfortunately, I don't see any force capable of leading such a revolution.  What is required is the discipline, focus and commitment of the Communist Party, but I'm afraid that the CP today is a spent force.

here are some videos in which Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-Prize-winning reporter, analyzes the situation today.  For each video I had to post two URLs, since I wasn't sure which one would get you to the video:

April 15, 2011- Chris Hedges speaking in advance of the start of Occupy Wall Street
Chris Hedges in a foreshadowing of the Occupy Wall Street protests ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nYAmxy0TZ6c#t=357s

Chris Hedges at Occupy Washington
Chris Hedges - Freedom Plaza - DC .m4v
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ANtDDfmW8Js#t=467s





nor anyone more popular overseas.

   I credit his Lefty orientation with his really bad choices , of course I do< I think we were too far bumped to the left by George Bush one and two.

    Would you want another Clinton? That could happen.

[Plane]

  What makes a violent revolution more likely to produce a government you would like than one you would not like?

[Michael Tee]

 <<What makes a violent revolution more likely to produce a government you would like than one you would not like?>>

I meant that for these guys, Occupy Wall Street, violent revolution is really the only answer.  They're against what I'm against, they're for what I'm for, I'd bet there's a good chance that if they won a revolutionary struggle, they'd establish a government I'd like.  Through electoral politics they'll get nowhere because the system is rigged against them and they at least know that much right now.

Look at Cuba - - I had a lot of sympathy with Fidel's revolution as the struggle developed and when the Triumph of the Revolution arrived, Cuba got the best government on the face of the earth.  I guess I knew from the values that they were fighting for that I'd love the government they ultimately succeeded in establishing.

[Plane]

You think that Cuba had the best government on Earth and you think that the USA had one near the other end of the scale.

You are in complete disagreement with 99% of the people who ever had the choice of which to move to.


I know you think that money alone explains this , this is just another symnptom of your disgust with the common human being.

[Michael Tee]

<<You think that Cuba had the best government on Earth and you think that the USA had one near the other end of the scale.>>

Only half true.  I love the Cuban government and I love Fidel, but I think the US government has been hijacked.  If the people can get it back from Wall Street and the corporations, it won't be the worst by a long shot.  It's one of the worst now but it doesn't have to remain so.

<<You are in complete disagreement with 99% of the people who ever had the choice of which to move to.>>

That is just totally ridiculous.  The vast majority of the Cuban people choose to remain in Cuba and build socialism there.  The gusanos who leave for the U.S. are just greed-driven swine but their story of danger on the high seas is a dramatic one and catches a lot of MSM attention.


<<I know you think that money alone explains this , this is just another symnptom of your disgust with the common human being.>>

Well, thanks for explaining to me how I think, but I believe that my assessment of those gusano scumbags is pretty much on the money, and your inability to appreciate the financial side of their decision is just another symptom of your naivete and susceptibility to the nonstop propaganda brainwashing bullshit of your government and your corporate-owned MSM.