John Simkin Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 Nathan, explain how the big bad corporations prohibit you from posting any tripe you want on this Forum or any other; or creating your own blog for millions to see. Explain how the big bad corporations prevent you from going to Kinkos or Office Max and printing ten thousand fliers and passing them out door to door. Explain how the big bad corporations interfere with your picketing the WH, or interfere with Cindy Sheehan's picketing GB's ranch. Democracy means more than just having the right to post on this Forum. Nathaniel’s point is about the way that American people only have a choice between two right-wing political parties that are under the control of large corporations. The same is true of the mainstream media in the United States. This is the case in all capitalist countries. It is no coincidence that former communist party officials were quick to gain control of the media in the Soviet Union in 1989. This is one of the major reasons they do not have a “democratic” political system. The internet has been an important development for people who do not share the “dominant ideology”. In time it might help to have a major impact on turning the US into a democracy. However, at the moment, the US is ruled by an oligarchy. I see you have not attempted to defend your original views on the CIA and democracy. No doubt you are busy “catching up on your reading”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 John wrote: Democracy means more than just having the right to post on this Forum. Nathaniel’s point is about the way that American people only have a choice between two right-wing political parties that are under the control of large corporations Gee, John, I thought I had offered Nathan several suggestions on methods to promulgate his POV other than just posting on your Forum. His claim was, of course, that these big bad corporations were stifling his right to dissent. The choice between George Bush and John Kerry was a rather stark one, I thought. I'll have to drop Sen. Kerry a line and tell him that you consider him a "right-wing politician"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Tim, in these situations it is always far more to do with what your not offered, than what you are. For instance, how would feel if your only choise of political partys were a left wing Socialist, or full on Communist. I suspect you would hold your nose and vote Socialist, welcome to my World... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Stephen: The following parties also appeared on the 2004 US presidential election. The electors had an abundance of choices: CONCERNS OF PEOPLE (PROHIBITION) PARTY: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTITUTION PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GREEN PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LIBERTARIAN PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEACE & FREEDOM PARTY OF CALIFORNIA: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERSONAL CHOICE PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROHIBITION PARTY OF COLORADO: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- REFORM PARTY / INDEPENDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIALIST PARTY USA: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SOCIALIST WORKERS PARTY: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORKERS WORLD PARTY: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 And not a one of them with a snowballs chance in hell of forming a Government, Did they all stand in all States, were they given a fair shake when it came to media acsess, which one was supported by funds from Big corporations, which one was endorsed by a large ciculation daily newspaper. Do you recall the furour over Ralph Nader having the gall to poll a few million votes. Tim, in politics the idea of a level playing field is a joke. Its my experience that most people vote (well those that can be bothered) out of habit, or fear, but seldom hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Well I for one voted out of hope. The Kerry supporters were of course upset that Nader ran. The wisdom of multi-party races is subject to debate. THe problem for you Stephen is most voters in America do not share your perspective. America is a free, prosperous country, relatively safe from terrorism, etc. Few Americans see a need for major changes. Both major parties obviously gravitate to the vital center, where the votes are. Politics 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 THe problem for you Stephen is most voters in America do not share your perspective. America is a free, prosperous country, relatively safe from terrorism, etc. Few Americans see a need for major changes. Both major parties obviously gravitate to the vital center, where the votes are.Politics 101. And the problem for you Tim is that you avoided my questions about Funding, endorcements, and media coverage. As regards most Americans being contented, what was the percentage of voter turnout in Nov 84?Most people who are dissatisfied with mainstream politics dont join the Revolutionary vanguard, they simply disengage from further participation in electing Mr pot, or Mr Kettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 "most voters in America do not share your perspective." This is a curious concept, erroneous, but worth commenting on. The movie "the Killing of America" (apart from the interesting footage from the sixties, including the Kennedy years) deals with that period of change from a time when ordinary people felt motivated and sufficiently unafraid to take to the streets, to sign up for campaigns such as the Anti War movement and the Freedom rides, to where snipers hid in towers, students were massacred by the so called national guard, elected presidents were criminals, and then beyond to today where asTim suggests "Both major parties obviously gravitate to the vital center, where the votes are." which is a reflection of apathy where less than half of eligible voters vote, and even if they do, the voting process and counting is frequently in doubt. It's called apathy. 'The Killing of America" shows it as enforced apathy. An alternative? asummary from: http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/rys5a.html Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter in 1980: “The real threat of Cuba is that they offer a model to be emulated by people who are dissatisfied with their lot or who are struggling to change things for the better.” Cuba has one of the most democratic systems in the world. Control of the country is grassroots, not top down. _______________ The Voter Everyone sixteen and older elect, via a ballot that is direct and secret, city and provincial leaders, and representatives of the National Assembly. The National Assembly in turn nominates and then elects the president. The Candidate The Cuban people themselves meet and nominate candidates, and anyone can be selected, including non-members of the PCC (Cuban Communist Party). Most who are selected are workers or peasants, or students who are children of workers or peasants. The Campaign Campaigns – which in capitalist “democracies” consist of rich politicians and their friends spending huge sums of money on television, radio, and newspaper ads in which they deceive voters with false promises – are a thing of the past in Cuba. Instead, in Cuba, a resume of each candidate, including a photograph and a biography listing things such as education and experience are posted in public places prior to the election. The Term Cubans select their representatives through a process known as Poder Popular (Peoples Power) in elections that take place every 2 ½ years. Recall All representatives are subject to recall by their electors. In other words, if the people are not satisfied with their representatives, they can vote to remove them from their position, and then nominate and elect someone else to replace them. __________________ This truly democratic process, completely impartial and free from corruption, explains why elections in Cuba have voter turnouts of 95 percent and higher, while in “democratic” capitalist countries like the U.S. less than half of the eligible voters ever cast a ballot. If the US citizen did have such control over their country, a lot of the terrible things that happen in the world would be avoided. It's not a matter of freedom that the CIA as a vanguard of reaction is concerned about, but rather the suppression of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Nathan wrote:here in the U.S. all ideas are not given access to the public sphere. They are blocked by Corporations and bureacracies, so that by the time Kansas is finally watching in November the DLC Corporate democrats have nominated someone who -- after tens of millions of volunteeer hours and 500 million dollars in contributions--answers Bush's Haymaker Lies with this post-mortem rabbit-punch: "I would have supported the war in Iraq even had I known there were no WMDs" What a bunch of garbage. Nathan, explain how the big bad corporations prohibit you from posting any tripe you want on this Forum or any other; or creating your own blog for millions to see. Explain how the big bad corporations prevent you from going to Kinkos or Office Max and printing ten thousand fliers and passing them out door to door. Explain how the big bad corporations interfere with your picketing the WH, or interfere with Cindy Sheehan's picketing GB's ranch. Problem is your ideas are so screwed up that no one pays any attention to them. That is why when the Dems nominate a candidate you would like (eg McGovern) he is trounced but when the Dems nominate a center-oriented candidate (like DLC endorsed Clinton or John Kerry) he either wins or almost wins the election. The Democrats were paid to lose? And how did they manipulate it that they would come close to winning but not quite do so? Your fantasies border on paranoia, man. Timothy: Thank you for the gratztuitous grace of your topic sentence: "What a bunch of Garbage" No doubt my comments conflict with Conventional Wisdom (TM, Newsweek, Washington Post company). This in itself doesn't make them wrong or right. But your ability to dismiss these comments SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SHARE THESE VIEWS is indicative of the unique corporate stalinism of our times. If you went to a spartan Sweedish smorgasbord in which your only choice was Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, would you be able to make any generalization about the Sweedish populations' taste for salmon and vodka? Any" left" analysis is systematically excluded from U.S. corporate media that has the potential to reach anyone over half a million. Lets look at your inevitable exception, Michael Moore. His name has become a media buzzword recently, as in the phrase" Michael Moore Whacko". Timothy, who invented this buzzword? Originally it was mouthed by the far right ON THEIR TELEVISION SHOWS THAT ARE ON EVERY WEEKDAY OF THE YEAR. Now Mr. Moore might well have been able to answer thier criticisms, if he were on the show, but he is only heard from once every three years. Soon, even the "centerist" Corporate news hacks are worried about saying something that someone on the next half hour show might call "out there from Michael Moore in left field" Meanwhile the line drive lies from right field continue, unanswered lika a Chilean bats' daily dividends to a guano mine. The medium is the message. Mr. Moore can't keep up with his critics and the U.S. would never give him the daily medium to do so. Regarding your comment on my freedom to blog ( one unspecified in the Bill of Rights) can you tell me of a blog that will enable me to reach 290 million viewers. The President has the well established ability to lie to this critical mass on four television networks that "my" legislators choose to sell to billionaire corporations and then use the profits to fund war-contracting, often to companies with links to the broadcasters. Not only that, they have the nerve to still call them "the public airwaves." Who needs state controlled journalists when our millionaire anchors sleep in such comfortable beds? Meenwhile as the old gnat on 60 minutes pointed out a few weeks ago, the foreign news desks are slashed to the bone, so that a jello brained anchor can get 20 million to smile pretty. You suggest I counter Bush-Kerrys audience of 290 million by going to Kinkos. Surrely your personal fairness doctrine( all others being long, ago lobbied away) dictates that you provide the quarters. Right now it is an undeniable fact that Bush allowed the close relatives of bin Laden to take the Lexington -Dubai shuttle out of the U.S. while all other planes were grounded. What other close relatives to a mass murderer could get such an awkward EZ Pass-- oh I forgot Allen Dulles' German friends in 1952. Of course this flight hasn't been mentioned by the press for three years. It also was mentioned only once in the NYT (august 20002) that Kowleen Rowley's FISA request was the ONLY ONE OUT OF MORE THAN 7,300 TO BE TURNED DOWN between 1995, when the process was revised, and 9/11/01. It is lack of circulation that turns a fact into "conspiracy theory". Timothy, are you satisfied with the findings of the 9/11 commision? That with a budget of three million dollars compared to the 60 million plus supena power to check and balance Clinton's weenie? There was one man who determined who would be interviewed and who wouldn't be. Why it was the same gentleman who edited the final report: Phillip Zelikow. He had proven his objectivity by coauthoring a book with Condi, and serving in the Bush transition team. Now that the commission has been uncritically swallowed by the networks he is once again working under Condi. A rising tide lifts all oil tankers. By the way Timothy, I have actually tried using some of the Rights originally in the Whittled Ten. Until recently I participated in a Free Speech Speak out at Union Square here in NYC. Its a place with some history of talking back to power. But the police here have successfully destroyed the speak out with endlessly changing permit regulations and constant harassment. I have even been told that I needed a permit to hold a 3by 3 foot sign. Have you tested the limits of free speach recently? Of course, for those who loudly proclaim their loyalty to an existing regime, be it in NYC today, or the USSR in 1937, the limits of freedom will remain comfortably uncharted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Few Americans see a need for major changes. I agree. That's why Americans deserve what is happening to them. They will have no one to blame but themselves, if they will care even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathaniel Heidenheimer Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Few Americans see a need for major changes. I agree. That's why Americans deserve what is happening to them. They will have no one to blame but themselves, if they will care even then. I disagree with the general assumption that we can assume general indifference among the american population, or any attitude at all, without also evaluating the media through which thier opinions are selectively, broadcast, stiffled, muffled, or soundbitten, depending on the degree to which these voices serve power. Often we hear how indifferent the average citizen is to foriegn policy. Yet when Bush I cooked up the Sadaam Hussein --baby incubator propaganda story that was made up using the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and a Bush linked PR firm, it had an immediate galvanizing effect. Although I partly share Ron's dismay at the American publics' current bovine state, I still think we need to look at how the media has worked with the McOpposition party, and maybe a helicoptor crash here and there, to ensure that NO CLEAR VOICE OF OPPOSITION EVER BECOMES A SOUND BITE ON THE EVENING NEWS. Now there are those bearded liberals who would argue that "these constitutional issues are simply too complex to ever be undestood in soundbite form" They protest too much. How about this one: "The American Revolutionaries had a name for this whako right idea of the Unitary Executive: George III" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Although I partly share Ron's dismay at the American publics' current bovine state, I still think we need to look at how the media has worked with the McOpposition party, and maybe a helicoptor crash here and there, to ensure that NO CLEAR VOICE OF OPPOSITION EVER BECOMES A SOUND BITE ON THE EVENING NEWS. You can blame the corporate media, which is certainly part of the problem, but what people who can't think for themselves are capable of preserving a democracy (or deserve one)? It's impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Stapleton Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Everybody knows that an anti-American government will come to power in Iraq once US troops are removed from the country. Why do you think US troops are going to be removed? The whole point of the Iraq invasion was, to quote the PNAC, to have "a military presence in the Gulf region." The US government now has that, and I'm sure it is not about to give it up after all that it has perpetrated to acquire it. FWIW, I think the troops will have to leave (the cities not the bases). Domestic pressure will force the issue within the next year-just a hunch. The hollow rhetoric from Bush and Rumsfeld is looking ridiculous when put up alongside the casualty lists. Is that woman still following Bush around? I like her style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Mark, They are talking about a troop reduction (due to domestic pressure), but as you say they are not going to leave the bases. Ever. Kerry pointed out in the presidential debates that 14 permanent bases were being built in Iraq. But no one paid attention to that, and these bases, thanks to the media, virtually remain a state secret. Or, I suppose Republicans could claim, it was just another Democrat lie. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now