"The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

[Hammer of Los]

...

I doubt very much that I'll still be around in 20 years. Many of you will be. I'm doing my utmost to make this world a better place for those of you who plan on living longer and for those yet to come and yes, I feel very good about that.

I certainly plan on being around in 20 years.

And a whole lot more.

So, thank you, iamwhomiam.

As to the World being an Illusion.

The Mind of Man Without is as Real as Anything you've Seen.

So gimme steam.

And how you feel can make it real.

The illusion is that the world exists independently of your mind.

It doesn't.

...

[Iamwhomiam]

Well, I don't watch television, so I imagine I'm missing a good bit of the over-the-air propaganda you're receiving. I only read the print media online and I'm selective as to what I choose to read. Most of my closest allies rarely discuss this election and when we do it seems to be related to a certain comment one or the other of the candidates had said. We're too busy usually. Peaceniks, anti nukeniks and environmentalniks. I'm registered as an independent as well. For the past 20yrs. Purely a political decision on my part, based mostly upon my having a Republican landlord.

I remain a direct-action Saul Alinsky activist/organizer; a lamplighter helping others to find their voice and to use it constructively.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Nice to make your virtual-acquaintance, Iamwhomiam.

One minor nitpick:

Well, I don't watch television, so I imagine I'm missing a good bit of the over-the-air propaganda you're receiving. I only read the print media online and I'm selective as to what I choose to read.

I was referring to the propaganda relayed to me by associates in or around my work environs, who unfortunately tend to absorb most media with minimal -- if any -- filtration. I haven't obtained 'news' from TV/radio for some time.

In any event, back to topic.

[ninakat]

Not to be rude, ninakat, but have you actually read either party's platform or read or heard the words from Romney, Ryan, or Limbaugh (or his equivalent)? Honestly, you're equating the two candidates to be equally evil. They are not. One appeals to the worst of us and the other appeals to the best of us, service to self and service to others. Just because both offer a service does not mean the service offered benefits all equally.

Oh good grief -- I think just about everybody on this board is well aware of the rhetoric of the two parties. I started learning about the extent of the lies a good 20 years ago (Clinton), and now realize I was late to the party even then. But let's talk about the Democrats who you seem to believe in (service to others, give me a fucking break). Have you not noticed that with each new Democratic president, the rhetoric sounds even better but the lies get even worse? Have you not noticed how the Democrats say just what you want to hear and then turn around and stab you in the back once in office (we're talking national politics, of course -- the further down the political food chain, the better chance of a little integrity, obviously).

I actually prefer the Republicans' rhetoric even though I despise it because it's at least a lot more honest (you know, good ol' racism, homophobia, etc.).

How much more Democratic Party betrayals can you bear? How many more people slaughtered in the name of empire can you look away from? How many more civil and human rights obliterated by the "lesser of the evils" are you willing to turn a blind eye to?

Good luck. You're really going to need it. And when it doesn't work out, Chris Hedges gets it right: "But ask yourself, once this nightmare starts kicking in, who the real sucker is."

Regarding this thread.... I'm done.... we're really and I have fall vegetables to plant.

[Iamwhomiam]

Beligerent one, I understood that. I should have acknowledged that I did. Nice meeting you, too!

ninakat you ask me questions and then leave? That's a bit rude, don't you think?
And I don't recall seeing you answer any of mine yet. You do assume far too much about me. Wrongly.

"How much more Democratic Party betrayals can you bear? How many more people slaughtered in the name of empire can you look away from? How many more civil and human rights obliterated by the "lesser of the evils" are you willing to turn a blind eye to?"

I suppose I can tolerate as many Democratic betrayals as necessary. Seems you've been tolerating them, too. Got any ideas that would change anything? I mean, beside voting for Stein or some dead write-in, because to me that's pointless.

You must think I'm naive. And it's clear you haven't been paying attention. I explained elsewhere my 40 years of fighting empire. And I've been actively engaged in fighting the second oldest democratic machine in the country for the last 20. Very effectively, I might add.

Go vote for Jill Stein. Then you too, can have a cookie.

And when your rights are ripped from you and all around you people are being slaughtered, be sure to pat yourself on the back and be content with the knowledge that you cast a vote of conscience for someone.

[lupercal]

Hedges himself has been accused on these pages of being a disinfo agent. But I like the guy. However, any of you wonder why he with his great number of readers has not sooner or really, at all, used his position to muster support for Stein? Or why he's advocating open revolt? (He is quite wealthy, you know)

"You can dismiss those of us who will in protest vote for a third-party candidate and invest our time and energy in acts of civil disobedience. You can pride yourself on being practical. You can swallow the false argument of the lesser of two evils. But ask yourself, once this nightmare starts kicking in, who the real sucker is."

Perhaps needless to say, I disagree with nearly all he has to say here. Yes, it is a "brand" war, but the ingredients of one product certainly is more appealing to me than the other. Hedges is dead wrong that voting for the lesser of two evils is a false argument. It is the only argument that matters. One choice offers some small hope while the other only offers hopelessness.

Right, when Roseanne shows up in Hedge's GOP klowncar I'll think about reassessing him. Anyway good call and props for taking on the reigning king of crypto-RW hackery. I didn't know Hedges was wealthy but it figures, he's good at what he does, just like Rush and Bill O'Reilly. Basically today's turd is the usual glop of half-truths, omissions, and sleights-of-hand, just convincing enough to fool the easily fooled (cough cough), and if I had an hour or two I'd get into it but let's just go with this: if Hedges needed Mother Jones to tell him Romney is "a shallow hypocrite," after spending the last four years lynching Obama electronically on a weekly basis, I guess that tells us where his sympathies lie, doesn't it?

[MacCruiskeen]

with each new Democratic president, the rhetoric sounds even better

Sorry, ninakat, I beg to differ. The content of Obama's speeches is vacuous at best ("Hope", "Change"), the form is ballsachingly conventional, and the delivery is just excruciating: morbid affectlessness masquerading as passion.

He has one single tonal register: the hollow bark. He is and always has been as obvious a phoney as Bush.

Barack Obama has a fucking horrible voice.

[IanEye]

but write somebody in. anybody.

i don't believe
the good times are over
eye don't believe
the thrill is all gone

real love is a man's salvation

the weak ones fall
the strong carry on



*

[Wombaticus Rex]

Lucius Washington: You're not gonna live forever.

Ricky Bobby: No one lives forever, no one. But with advances in modern science and my high level income, it's not crazy to think I can live to be 245, maybe 300. Heck, I just read in the newspaper that they put a pig heart in some guy from Russia. Do you know what that means?

Lucius Washington: No, I don't know what that means. I guess longer life.

Ricky Bobby: No, he didn't live. It's just exciting that we're trying things like that.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

http://www.mercurynews.com/entertainmen ... rack-obama

IDIOCRACY IN ACTION.

The singer [Madonna] brought her MDNA Tour to Washington, D.C. on Monday night, and added a bizarre dose of politics to the show.
"Y'all better vote for (expletive) Obama, OK? For better or for worse, all right? We have a black Muslim in the White House. Now that's some amazing (expletive)," she said. "It means there is hope in this country. And Obama is fighting for gay rights, so support the man, (expletive)."
She would be easy to dismiss if she didn't have her Ph.D. in political science. Oh, wait ...
Her comments came in the middle of an extended speech that touched on Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy and traced the civil rights movement from America's inception to Obama's election.

[Luposapien]

Don't think I've caught the whole thread here, but enough, I think, to recognize the pattern from previous discussions. I'm honestly torn as to whether or not voting at the presidential level makes any damn difference or not, at least as far as some of the larger trends in foreign and domestic policy are concerned. It's not that I don't think a little less worse is better than a lot worse when it comes to issues like the treatment of traditionally oppressed groups (at least the ones living in this country). It's just that I don't think those issues really matter a good god damn to the moneyed interests that are truly running the show. They're just used as a way to keep the majority of the population fighting each other- at least when they're not too damn tired or doped up to do anything- so they have a harder time seeing who's really turning the screws on them (other than themselves).

Regardless, I'll probably go out and vote, and I'm pretty sure it'll be for the Greens this time. Of course, that's an easier choice for me to make living in Texas, as my vote, for the Pres at least, means next to nothing with the way the Electoral College system is set up. Romney's gonna take Texas. The way I see it, the only way I can say anything is by a symbolic vote for a party that actually represents something close to what I believe in. It may not be much, but it's really all I've got, and I just don't think I can stomach voting for Obama again this time around.

Also, and completely off topic, it looks like "Obama" is still not recognized as a correctly spelled word by whatever sorcerous device does the spell checkery here, though Romney is (racism is everywhere). Also also, sorcerous is apparently not a real word either (or checkery, but that's not so surprising).

[compared2what?]

But I also know most people here could recite the incantation of American Economic Doom -- the very real calculus of "How Am I Going To Feed My Kids" constant panic that one hell of a lot of human beings in this country are living with. We all know Obama will not unveil a new New Deal in his second term, but he does represent a broader and more funded social safety net than Mitt Ryan will. So, it's a tiny sliver, but there are millions of Americans in there.

This "lesser of two evils" shit is always presented as a sheep conformity issue, and I wish you'd realize it can also be a matter of simple empathy.

I don't expect it to be conclusive, since it was posted on page one of the thread. But I thought it was worth repeating.

[justdrew]

well, you can take this promise to the bank

Clinton: ‘It’s gonna be a different world’ in Washington once Obama re-elected

it'll be a different world only if we get past the filibuster problem

---

I don't know, I can kinda-care about conventional politics and still be aware of all the varieties of BS. Kinda like some people give a shit about football/baseball/basketball/stick-ball, despite their complete and utter irrelevancy; they're relevant despite that because so many people give a shit.

[Elihu]

Just out of curiosity - Are there any provisions in the constitution to disband the union and remove the federal government? Or would it take some "watering of the tree of liberty"?

if i haven't carped on this enough, bad on me. a constitutional convention seems to me the only viable and realistic chance to re-constitute (pun intended) the (insert adjective of choice here) federal government. as i understand it, if three quarters of the state legislatures call for a convention then it happens. eff the rubber stamp committee, the preznit and the sales reps under the dome. yes, the statehouses are as corrupt as the feds but why not "occupy' them instead of an abstraction? think you could get adbusters behind that idea? so pedestrian and unsexy in this age of phantasmagoria. but woop there it is...

[compared2what?]

Just out of curiosity - Are there any provisions in the constitution to disband the union and remove the federal government? Or would it take some "watering of the tree of liberty"?

if i haven't carped on this enough, bad on me. a constitutional convention seems to me the only viable and realistic chance to re-constitute (pun intended) the (insert adjective of choice here) federal government. as i understand it, if three quarters of the state legislatures call for a convention then it happens.

That sounds surprisingly fair and reasonable to me. Very viable with the will of the people behind it. But not very gameable by figurative Bolsheviks and/or elites of any kind. Even the very richest kind.

I think the convention should consider retaining that feature in some form when it ditches the federal government, if there's a place for it. Otherwise, what's to stop the next roving horde that comes along from re-convening away their problems with your new and improved constitutional way of life? You can't really assume that nobody will try. There are always meddlers.