Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 10, 2008
Obama The Fraud

October 24, 2007:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
link

That was then. Now:

The Senators then voted for "cloture" on the underlying FISA bill — the procedure that allows the Senate to overcome any filibusters — and it passed by a vote of 72-26. Obama voted along with all Republicans for cloture.
link

It is now obvious that the guy is a fraud.

The democratic primaries were looking quite enthusiastic with a record number of voters and plenty of small donations. Obama is doing his very best to change that for the general election. To what end I do not know.

Does he really believe to pick up more voters on the right than he is losing on the left? If so, I think he is wrong.

Prediction: Voter participation in the general election will be at a record low.

Comments

I intend to vote, as I have for the past 40 years. I am going to the polls. But at this point in time, I wouldn’t vote for either of these two ‘frontrunners.’ I am already looking at the third-party candidates and there is more agreement on the issues I consider most important on Barr’s platform than Obama’s (end the Iraq war now, no prememptive wars, no pandering to Israel, restore and protect Constitutional rights, etc). I would never of course vote for McCain under any circumstance; so that ridiculous statement that if you are not voting for Obama, you are going to vote for McCain is a pile of bullshit intended to intimidate.
Obama will not get my vote especially after FISA, nor will McCain and his insane warmongering. My neighbors and other family members have decided not to vote at all (at least for now). I won’t do that. I will be there voting, probably for Barr. Interestingly, most people don’t even know his name at this point in time, yet he is scoring 8% to 10% in many states, including up north and out west (New Hampshire is his highest).
As an aside, do you realize that McCain hasn’t been present to vote in the Senate since April 8th. He apparently doesn’t seem to be able to do even his job as a senator, let alone as a president. We probably should be thankful.

Posted by: Ensley | Jul 13 2008 13:26 utc | 101

Barr on racist POS Jesse Helms:

I was deeply saddened to hear of Sen. Helms’ passing and want his family to know they are in my heart and prayers at this time. Sen. Helms was one of the finest, most courageous and deeply principled men to ever serve in the United States Congress. As President’s Reagan’s right hand and ally, he helped bring down Communism so that nations might grow and flourish in freedom. He was a stalwart ally of freedom fighters around the globe, knowing that we are all diminished if we allow fascism to flourish. He was also the consummate gentleman, revered by colleagues, staff and friends for his unfailing kindness, good humor, generosity and patriotism.
Today, as we celebrate our freedom and independence, we should stop and give thanks to God for the life and work of Jesse Helms. As a nation we are stronger and the world is freer for his commitment to liberty. May God bless his family.

I’ll go with Nader or McKinney if they’re on the ballot here.

Posted by: ran | Jul 13 2008 14:17 utc | 102

hosted by Jack Bauer, priceless
my thoughts exactly

Posted by: annie | Jul 13 2008 14:28 utc | 103

ran @102
The issue of whether Barr’s kind words about a dead collegue makes a hill of beans difference or not in the big issues of the day, I personally find it irrelevent in the great scheme of things. Barr is real big on civil rights for everyone. If that’s all you have to keep from voting for him, well, the Constitution says we can vote for anyone we want for any reason (sound or ridiculous) we have. If what Barr said about dead Jesse Helms (have you ever heard any politician speak ill of the dead?) is more important than, for example, protecting the Constitution or stopping the war, then you vote according to your conscience.

Posted by: Ensley | Jul 13 2008 14:53 utc | 104

I’ll be writing in Cynthia McKinney and The Power to the People Committee and campaign, thus far.
You keep drinking your favorite soda pop, until your teeth rot out, ya hear…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 13 2008 15:37 utc | 105

Nader or Mckinney would protect the Constitution and the stop the wars too, given a chance. And they’re just as likely to win as Barr, and they don’t effusively praise dead racist fucks, so far as I know.

Posted by: ran | Jul 13 2008 15:48 utc | 106

Further, I support Hip Hop Activist Rosa Clemente as her VP Slot, knowing hardly anything about her. Seemingly showing me to be a complete fool, however, I have enough critical thinking and information and knowledge based on the “conscious” hip-hop movement to know that she’d be a good match for Cindy. Hell, I’d vote for Pee-wee Herman, before I’d even consider Coke Or Pepsi as (my friend) waldo has…
I guess, we’ll see five years from now who threw their vote away… or if it meant anything.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 13 2008 15:50 utc | 107

waldo: hope-sucking somnambulists for Obomb

Posted by: Lizard | Jul 13 2008 15:54 utc | 108

dude’s a craven, lying, triangulating, pandering, AIPAC fellating little bitch.
!
He is a politician. Now, he belongs to the upper reaches and must buckle in. In any case the job of president is essentially a ‘figurehead’ post, pushed in front of the cameras to reassure. Yes, I know, the US president has real, raw power. It rests on his supporters, circles of influence, commitments, deals made, etc. and so ‘personality’ or whatever does play a role, though it is impossible to figure the degree and in what fashion.
Americans elected, or saw selected and did not object, Bush junior, *twice*, despite the fact that he is a drunken, stumbling, ignorant, illiterate, unappealing, dull, badly dressed idiot, with absolutely no charm or so-called leadership qualities, and zero qualifications, in fact a long list of failures on his CV.
So personal qualities don’t count. The problem lies with the US electoral/political process, all thru the system.
Bush was a good liar, because he also never told the truth, he was never himself involved in anything he said. He never knew anything, had any opinion, and just played a role, taking that role seriously, as he has done most of his life. It is -was- a life lived by a script, by mouthing words, formed by seeking approval, the short flush of applause or acceptance, admiration, deference. The need to dominate to avoid criticism, but mostly to be protected, to be safe, to be ‘validated’ in psycho-babble. This explains his loopy matey-ness .. it is the only way he has of getting in touch. (More could be said, onions have many layers.)
The perfect patsy for evil-doers.
Obama is a different kettle of fish. (Sniff.) Knowledgeable, educated, sophisticated, aware, smooth, controlled; ambitious, and either narcissistic and a self-believer – thus both a sucker and a manipulator – or in above his head. Or worse. Far worse.
— I thought Pat had said she was a woman, in the past I mean? In any case she showed somehow she was a she.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jul 13 2008 16:12 utc | 109

I want to know why criticism of the Big O represents ‘whining.’ Isn’t it interesting that the Big O Brigade have started to throw their weight around like Taser-packing cops in a Florida kindergarten? First ‘go about your business,’ and now the whining theme. Stop criticizing or take your medicine, perhaps? The Big O assures you it’s for your own good, a little bit of change you can believe in. Let’s have the audacity to hope we’re not going to be drinking in a bar full of O Trolls. That would be the final humiliation.

Posted by: Tantalus | Jul 13 2008 16:19 utc | 110

Tangerine @ 109
Obama: Knowledgeable, educated, sophisticated, aware, smooth, controlled; ambitious, and either narcissistic and a self-believer – thus both a sucker and a manipulator – or in above his head. Or worse. Far worse.
That’s sounds like a description of Richard Nixon …

Posted by: Ensley | Jul 13 2008 16:35 utc | 111

The Koskids are against McKinney cos ‘she’s an anti-semite.’ I enjoy how Nader and McKinney are to them like a cross of garlic is to a vampire.

Posted by: biklett | Jul 13 2008 16:51 utc | 112

perhaps we need a thread at some point on the recurring Repug theme that does’nt just question Obama’s patriotism, but also whether he’s authentically as American as the rest of “us”.
and if there are factors compelling Obama to demonstrate his patriotism (a corner long since captured by the right-wing) more robustly, this might be one of them.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 13 2008 17:04 utc | 113

yes ensley too strange i was thinking about nixon, as i was trying to dredge up memories of other US presidents, don’t know much about most of them. 😉 i understand the irony, still obama is not in the same league as he is not an american culturally – he is a pretender upstart, which in part explains his success.

Posted by: Tangerine | Jul 13 2008 17:39 utc | 114

“Obama is the beneficiary of reverse discrimination”. Get ready because you will be hearing it more & more.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 13 2008 18:48 utc | 115

and heres a small carrot:
would you like to see Mario Cuomo on the Supreme Court ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 13 2008 19:53 utc | 116

jony@115: wonder if you could explain a little more what you mean by benefiting from reverse discrimination.

Posted by: Lizard | Jul 13 2008 20:13 utc | 117

Never vote republican is my creed; but the disillusionment would be complete if the difference between Obama and McCain is merely about manners, a question of style. Barr eulogizing Jesse Helms and Bill Clinton weeping at Nixon’s funeral are nice theatrical touches, the melodrama of the American soul and realpolitik, the mask, the never-ending drama of masks. It’s sometimes a revolting spectacle.
I think the change Americans were looking for in Obama was the radical moment of honesty, a catharsis that could wipe away the filth of 8 years of Bush and Cheney. One question must be answered. Will there be a rule of law?–or will lawlessness move on, unabated, as if no election had occured?–as if no mandate was implied by the vote?
If McCain is elected; it means not only a return to the unreliable narrator, but the public acceptance of dysfunction, the embrace of another transparently flawed personality, another psychologically damaged president.
If McCain is elected; it will be the definitive statement about Americans, per se , the character of the people. The person taking the oath of office will be the moral composite of all the weaknesses Americans expect in their leader. His weakness for spin, their weakness. His prejudice theirs. He and they will go on sanitizing the imperial bloodletting and rationalizing the violence, while the nation gets misty-eyed over supporting its troops. And all these expressions of cowardice will be advertised as strengths.
Obama? Well, he doesn’t appear to be unbalanced. He doesn’t fly into rages. His experience doesn’t include being broken down under torture, as a prisoner of war. He doesn’t joke about bombing countries. He hasn’t talked about a hundred year stint in Iraq. He is not visibly attached, like McCain, to most every policy of Bush/Cheney. To sum up, he’s not the republican candidate for president.

“therefor never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.”–John Donne

We will be taking a chance on Obama; but we will be fleeing from the devil we know. Appearing with his young family, Obama appears to be a normal human being. Contrast this to McCain, whose volatility never seems to be too far beneath the surface; Obama, on the other hand, seems refreshingly even-tempered. But I don’t know if Obama is going to calm America, heal America, or make it a better nation. When I realize how conservative his political stance is becoming I find myself with an uncomfortable sense of vertigo.
As far as my intuition about Obama takes me, I see none of the brutish undertones or vindictiveness of a Nixon. Americans may be jittery about someone as charismaic as Obama; they probably need to stop projecting their hopes and ideals upon him and examine the goods with more scrutiny. But it is likely Americans will decide that the content of his character is suitable for the White House.

Posted by: Copeland | Jul 13 2008 21:27 utc | 118

Lizaed@117,
just a little snark after reading Tangerine@114

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Jul 13 2008 21:33 utc | 119

Here’s a banner for MoA to put up so that all the whiners can have a focal point: http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/29987/thumbs/r-OBAMA-SECOND-TOP-huge.jpg
And where do I get that $cam cool-aid?
Kucinich for AG.

Posted by: waldo | Jul 14 2008 0:03 utc | 120

waldo: maybe you think those of us critical of the potential future president of the US get some kind of satisfaction in pointing out things like warantless wiretapping, escalating the “good” war in Afghanistan, giving Christians more federal money, and supporting an undivided Jerusalem are bad ideas, but we don’t. BOTH candidates are dangerous because they are telegraphing to anyone capable of seeing that they will BOTH be obedient lapdogs to captains of industry and the foreign entanglements the founding fathers warned us about.
Obomb, the constitutional lawyer, should f-ing know better. and so should you, waldo

Posted by: Lizard | Jul 14 2008 1:07 utc | 121

Lizard; –
Nobody is more distressed than me to witness Obama’s flip on FISA and his triangulation of ultra-important issues that reflect on the authenticity of the democracy in America. Nobody was more spiritually tortured than me to have witnessed the crushing of hope by the MSM and the gullibly stupid American voting public which resulted in the slanderous destruction of Al Gore and John Kerry and the pusillanimous support of the intransigently stupid, sadistic, amoral, narcisstic GW Bush.
Like George Galloway, I have been completely opposed to every foul deed of Saddam Hussein and the American and other Governments that supported him. I vociferously opposed the first American war on Iraq, the sanctions of Iraq, the second American war on Iraq as well as the Iraqi war on Iran which was fomented, armed and directed by America. Hell, I’m still incandescent with rage over America’s crimes in SE Asia during the American war on Vietnam, 1954-74.
Like every thinking human being on earth I’m am, hope against hope, praying for the return of the rule of Law and a vision of humanity to America and I’m not so stupid to believe that Obama is surely going to do that or even that he’s capable of it.
But there is only one way, one tiny hope that that transformation MIGHT occur. If he is elected, if he is supported by the Democratic party and the American public once he attains that office and if he is able to resist the perfidious, sinister undercurrent of American political leverage that seems hell-bent on destroying every noble precept and every grain of freedom that exists not only in America but also the world, he MAY be the good man that he appears to be and so turn America away from the path of spying, war, torture and the destruction of human rights.
So, the only realistic option is to support him to become president, then use your rights as American citizens to steer the Government towards peace and democracy. Any gratuitous criticism beforehand is counter-productive, destroys the hope and aspirations of young people who want to believe in something good and honest, and plays into the hands of rightard scumbags like Rush and co. by supplying them with with ammo.
OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT.
Kucinich for A.G.

Posted by: waldo | Jul 14 2008 5:00 utc | 122

waldo: the passionate defense of your opinion is much appreciated. please understand the cynicism i express is a defensive coping mechanism to help me deal with constant disappointment (politically). i too have moments where i tell myself Obama’s eager jogging to the right is the necessary political posturing a young, black candidate must make to be taken seriously by the establishment. unfortunately there is A LOT of evidence pointing to Obomb as a savvy rebranding project being thrown together because his defeat of Hillary really was, i believe, a major surprise. i also believe they hedge their bets way in advance, so the outcome was totally unsuspected.
i really do hope cynics like me are wrong and the obvious “hints” of O’s capitulation are just facets of a clever ruse to fool the task masters who run the show and Obama will, once elected, dismantle the shaky legality of smoke&mirror amerikan dictatorship rule of law set in place and at the disposal of whoever comes next, but i’m not holding my breath.

Posted by: Lizard | Jul 14 2008 5:46 utc | 123

should read wasn’t totally unsuspected.

Posted by: Lizard | Jul 14 2008 5:49 utc | 124

and for those not counterpunch enthusiasts i offer this

Posted by: Lizard | Jul 14 2008 6:16 utc | 125

Both plushtown and Copeland have mentioned the great Spectacle, of which I am inclined to agree…
@WALDO et all…
Waldo is that you at three minutes in, heckling this flawed but effective author, research professional and activist?* …LOL
* thanks to viacom recent shenanigans
More on viacom I think someone earlier posted this also, but the connotations of it needs to be repeated, not ONLY is this a sign of what Laura Nader (yes that Laura Nader) calls “corporate fundamentalism”, Anthropologist Nader, unfavorably describe this agenda as totallising tendencies through advertising, television, the Internet, billboards, the polluting of public spaces.” Further, What she fails to explain is the wedding of military state corporate Fascism. I suspect once they sell this information to private ‘spy agencies’ such as the new gig, by blackwater and others contractors they will be profiling people in new and innovative ways.
back to the Situationism

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 14 2008 9:03 utc | 126

Both plushtown and Copeland have mentioned the great Spectacle, of which I am inclined to agree…
@WALDO et all…
Waldo is that you at three minutes in, heckling this flawed but effective author, research professional and activist?* …LOL
* thanks to viacom recent shenanigans
More on viacom I think someone earlier posted this also, but the connotations of it needs to be repeated, not ONLY is this a sign of what Laura Nader (yes that Laura Nader) calls “corporate fundamentalism”, Anthropologist Nader, unfavorably describe this agenda as totallising tendencies through advertising, television, the Internet, billboards, the polluting of public spaces.” Further, What she fails to explain is the wedding of military state corporate Fascism. I suspect once they sell this information to private ‘spy agencies’ such as the new gig, by blackwater and others contractors they will be profiling people in new and innovative ways.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 14 2008 9:04 utc | 127

part 2
addendum:
back to the Situationism

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 14 2008 9:05 utc | 128

whoops, I’m tired, meant to add, the reason you can’t watch the whole vid at second link on 120 is, (you guessed it) because of the viacom and youtube/google policy…
could this be the beginning the secret 2010 control of internet that someone (forgive me) just posted about? I think that was here that I read that… anyway, I’m tired, and we come to the close of another of, ‘uncle’s comedy show’, besides, it’s all a ‘laff in’, say good night, dick…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 14 2008 9:23 utc | 129

126..

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 14 2008 9:27 utc | 130

Ok, one more, since Nietzsche dispised mass movements one should meditate on him, try your luck w/The Nietzsche Family Circus divination… 😉
perhaps b could create another post so’s we can all share our personal readings, here’s mine..

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 14 2008 10:09 utc | 131

Uncle $cam, thanks for 126-130. I need to pay more attention to Vermin Supreme (127), met him outside Dem Boston convention ’04 and Inauguration metal detectors ’05, I with 2 Plushtowns blown up to 2′ x 3′ and laminated on double sided sign, he with microphone, followers and bombast. First had the “free speech zone” in isolated area and inward leaning barbed wire, 2nd had Vader storm trooper outfits/training.
Re u-tube (126), vulnerability of internet participation reminds me of story of inception of French Foreign Legion as a way to have troublemakers left over after Napoleonic Wars assemble themselves for deportation, then realization that deportation as fighting units could be useful: “The French Foreign Legion was created by Louis Philippe,{son of Louis Philippe II Joseph, Duke of Orléans (April 13, 1747 – November 6, 1793), called Philippe Égalité, rumored to have bought up grain in 1789 as stimulus to peasants unpleasant} then King of the French, on March 10, 1831. The direct reason was that foreigners were forbidden to serve in the French Army after the 1830 July Revolution. wikipedia
The purpose of the Legion was to remove disruptive elements from society and put them to use fighting the enemies of France. Recruits included failed revolutionaries from the rest of Europe, soldiers from the disbanded foreign regiments, and troublemakers in general, both foreign and French. Algeria was designated as the Legion’s home; as the colony was proving to be a very unpopular posting with regular regiments in the French Army, the introduction of the Legion was well received.
In late 1831, the first Legionnaires landed in Algeria, the country that would be the Legion’s homeland for 130 years and shape its character. The early years in Algeria were hard for Legionnaires because they were often sent to the worst postings, received the worst assignments and were generally uninterested in the new colony of the French.
The Legion’s first service in Algeria came to an end after only four years, since it was needed elsewhere.
The French Foreign Legion in Spain
Main article: First Carlist War
To support Isabella’s claim to the Spanish throne against her uncle, the French government decided to send the Legion to Spain. On 28 June 1835, the unit was handed over to the Spanish government. The Legion landed at Tarragona on 17 August with around 4,000 men, and were quickly dubbed Los Argelinos (the Algerians) by locals because of their previous posting.
The Legion’s commander immediately dissolved the national battalions to improve the esprit de corps. Later, he also created three squadrons of lancers and an artillery battery from the existing force to increase independence and flexibility.
The Legion was dissolved on 8 December 1838, when it had dropped to only 500 men. The survivors returned to France, many reenlisting in the new Legion along with many of their former Carlist enemies.
Mexico
Main article: Battle of Camarón
Battle of Camarón.
It was in Mexico on 30 April 1863 that the Legion earned its legendary status. A company led by Capitaine Danjou, numbering 62 soldiers and 3 officers, was escorting a convoy to the besieged city of Puebla when it was attacked and besieged by two thousand members of the Mexican Army,[3] organized in three battalions of infantry and cavalry, numbering 1,200 and 800 respectively. The patrol was forced to make a defence in Hacienda Camarón, and despite the hopelessness of the situation, fought nearly to the last man. When only five survivors remained, out of ammunition, a bayonet charge was conducted in which three of the five were killed. The remaining two were brought before the Mexican general, who allowed them to return to France as an honour guard for the body of Capitaine Danjou. The captain had a wooden hand which was stolen during the battle; it was later returned to the legion and is now kept in a case in the Foreign Legion museum at Aubagne, and paraded annually on Camerone day.”
{Remember that what kept England and France out of US Civil War was likely the Emancipation Proclamation, effective January 1863, and Czar Alexander II’s fleet of the east and west US coasts fall 1863 to spring 1864 2nd color cartoon.}
Anyway, internet is place where troublemakers can prove themselves guilty of thought, but I doubt anything as nice as “March or die!” awaits.
Toddler Nietszcheites (130) are great!

Posted by: plushtown | Jul 14 2008 11:24 utc | 132

addendum #131 – Vermin Supreme should read “he with microphone, fur, followers and bombast”. He was very furry, in a vermin way.

Posted by: plushtown | Jul 14 2008 11:29 utc | 133

Heh, 126 ya got me. I love Naomi but first the presidency, then the rest…and strange of strange I live in Canberra where’s there’s (almost) no public advertising, billboards etc….and yes, it’s beautiful.

Posted by: waldo | Jul 14 2008 13:28 utc | 134

Waldo, apologies for my earlier bared teeth – I’d just had a hair-tearingly frustrating talk with an Obama campaigner on the street and after listening to her re-hashed ‘anyone but Bush’ non-statements I was ready to throw myself under a train (should one be available and travelling more than 10 mph).
Here’s my fear, though: you say Any gratuitous criticism beforehand is counter-productive, destroys the hope and aspirations of young people who want to believe in something good and honest, and plays into the hands of rightard scumbags like Rush and co. by supplying them with with ammo. But isn’t encouraging those young people (and middle-aged people, and those grown old waiting for a single fucking thing to change) to see something as good and honest when it isn’t quite either of those things simply going to pervert their (our) understanding of goodness and honesty? This isn’t the time to move the goalposts (in a Bush-esque way) to accommodate lessened/diminished conceptions of those two absolutes, surely?

Posted by: Tantalus | Jul 14 2008 14:32 utc | 135

That a private corporation is given control and responsibility of the US elections is absurd. The 20 facts reported below are only one of the reasons why U.S. citizens should abstain from voting in the 2008 elections for president and the other national elections.
The second reason to vote not to vote is the fact that the people are offered up choices selected by the corporations meaning that the voter really has no honest choice in the elections. Candidates who truly oppose the system entrenched in Washington have no realistic possibility of winning an election.
The third reason to vote not to vote is the fact that there are no essential differences among the viable candidates running for office. Relative to the presidential elections, all one has to do for confirmation of this fact is to look at the voting records and speeches of John McCain and Barack Obama and his running mate, Hillary Clinton. McCain is spawned by the same warmongering psychopathology that bred George W. Bush. Barack Obama is an African-American face on the white power structure, making him arguably more dangerous than McCain. Why has his campaign been labeled with the theme of “change”? Does the reader seriously think that Barack Obama represents real change in the political and economic structure in Washington? Does the reader seriously believe that he would be permitted to be the Democratic candidate for president were he to go against the system that got him where he is today? With rare, exceptions (mostly face-saving), the presidential, senatorial and house candidates have all consistently voted to fund the Bush policies and the war on Iraq.
Abstinence is the most powerful vote one can make against the fraudulent electoral system in the U.S. Abstinence is the only tool, the most effective weapon against the established politicians who have risen to the level of viable candidacy. The greatest electoral fear Washington has is abstinence. The government uses the vote to justify its legitimacy. Without it, the US government can make no legitimate claim that it is a democracy – which it is not.
Vote not to vote in 2008.

It isn’t just Obama that is fraudulent

Posted by: jcairo | Jul 15 2008 7:43 utc | 136

Tantalus
You’re absolutely correct. The FISA flip was a gut-wrencher, “impeachment is off the table” a kick in the nuts, approval for war funding….we can go on but what’s the alternative? There is at least a semblance of sanity with Obama and the democrats; the alternative is fascist chaos.

Posted by: waldo | Jul 15 2008 9:01 utc | 137

@135, I always vote, will do write in candidate (or maybe Green Party) this time. If everyone who wants to protest did a write in candidate or a Green Party candidate instead (or wrote “none of the above”) that would at least show potential power. (Or show up, but vote only in local elections. No way to make a statement if you’re both mute and not present.)
Lack of power at the bottom is not feared by “Washington” (a front) but encouraged.
Remember that the most hot-headed of the Panthers were FBI, that Thomas Tongyai, “Tommy the Traveller”, was FBI ministering to the SDS. Note in recent years that provocateurs trying to make peaceful protests non-peaceful and thus smackable with MICFiC toys seem to be part of cop payrolls.
The 20 year old Australian TV show Dateline on 10/12/05 ran “Inside Indonesia’s War on Terror”, which included this exchange with ex-Prime Minister Abdurrahman Wahid about Bali 88/202:
Reporter: So you believe that the Bali Bombers had no idea that there was a second bomb?
A.W.: Yeah, precisely.
Reporter: And who would you suggest planted the second bomb?
A.W.: Well, it looks like the police.
Reporter: The Police?
A.W. : Or the armed forces, I don’t know.
(second bomb was a car bomb, did the big damage and desired murders.)
It seems likely that the top suggesters of apathy (not jcairo) are stimulated by the same people who catch “terrorists” by supplying them. Findable opposition to Big Brother is run by Big Brother.

The government uses the vote to justify its legitimacy. Without it, the US government can make no legitimate claim that it is a democracy – which it is not.

Make a claim to whom?

Posted by: plushtown | Jul 15 2008 11:55 utc | 138

ah, the glorious symbolism of “the vote” and how it magically will fix things – despite the fact that the system has been quite convincingly shown to be corrupted in its entirety and execution
don’t know how voting can work, when the system itself is obviously rigged, massaged, tweaked, bogus,…n
or is that more gratuitous criticism?
Make the claim to whom?
Why, anyone.
Remember, when ANY claim is made
The onus is on the CLAIMANT to back it up and extraordinary claims, require the same in proof
Not for the audience to prove or disprove
What if you can’t write in candidates?
The machines don’t allow this, do they?
I couldn’t where I live anyway because anything other than ‘x’ for your choice destroys the paper ballot
picking the lesser of two evils always, always just makes things more evil

Posted by: jcairo | Jul 15 2008 12:48 utc | 139

#138 Well, if no write-in possible, “show up, but vote only in local elections. No way to make a statement if you’re both mute and not present.”
But I can see the argument. In Walden 2, the residents voted only in local elections, reasoning that on national odds of being killed en route to/from polls were greater than having impact, and there’s an argument there. Robert Mitchum mocked those who voted, also said he’d met unnamed people in Europe in the early 50’s who said what was going to happen in next decades and same did.
BTW, if you don’t already know of, look at Votescam book, by two now dead brothers Collier. Looks like website, run by a daughter, is dead too. Amazon lists used copies starting at $6.49 plus shipping, though they were never willing to admit it was still in print while it was.

Posted by: plushtown | Jul 15 2008 13:33 utc | 140

“show up, but vote only in local elections. No way to make a statement if you’re both mute and not present.”
and this fixes a decrepit, corrupted system how?
The Supremem Court decision awarding the election in 2000 made it quite clear that the votes don’t count
apathetic people don’t vote, therefore anyone not voting – regardless of motive – is apathetic – this is the gist of your fallacious argument
axis of logic is hardly being mute and has lots of info to back their claim
“In Walden 2, the residents voted only in local elections, reasoning that on national odds of being killed en route to/from polls were greater than having impact, and there’s an argument there.”
What argument would that be and how is it related to whether voting or not voting within a systemically corrupted process is effectively any different?
What if there were a vastly lower turnout, say on the order of 5% max.
Wouldn’t there be some attempt to findout why?
What if all kinds of people showed up to vote, but refused to enter the polling stations?
What if when asked they all propagated the same message, maybe even put a big sign up on the Their front lawn outlining the reasons for this kind of protest – rather than holding your nose and shoving big OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT in…

Posted by: jcairo | Jul 15 2008 15:58 utc | 141

“What if all kinds of people showed up to vote, but refused to enter the polling stations?”
That’s your best one, but voting only on the local stuff would allow one to leave, not have to stay all day. But protests outside voting stations would be interesting, could be combined with voting on local stuff, or just walking in to register then not voting.
“What if there were a vastly lower turnout, say on the order of 5% max.”
That level would be interesting, but if that level could be done so could getting most of the disaffected to vote for Green Party or a write-in and know it, making official results implausible more than already.
“Wouldn’t there be some attempt to find out why?”
No, we’d be told why, no finding out required.
There is no fixing system in any case. Our only hope within this historical situation would be a James Bond villain, and we’re not getting one.
“The Supreme Court decision awarding the election in 2000 made it quite clear that the votes don’t count.” True, as did Gore’s asking only for some Florida counties to be recounted rather than all, and all presidential candidates’ actions since. But you know I think this:
lifted from near end of “entitlement to credit” thread: “another: US elections are clearly false except for the money collecting and disbursing parts, or candidates would care about voting systems counted by people who don’t want to sell the printing part of touch screen methods though their cheaper printers for atms and cash registers work just fine. Sequoia management finessed us into the billions spent on the Help America Vote Act by deliberately using bad paper and allowing the confusing butterfly ballot. Shouldn’t such info destroy Sequoia as a government contractor?”

Posted by: plushtown | Jul 16 2008 12:29 utc | 142

crossposting juan moment’s over @OT (for the record). Via Uruknet:

Obama outlines policy of endless war
16 July 2008
Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as an “antiwar” candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a “major speech” on national security and the US war in Iraq.
Speaking before a backdrop of massed American flags at the Reagan Building in Washington, Obama made it clear that he opposes the present US policy in Iraq not on the basis of any principled opposition to neo-colonialism or aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the Iraq war is a mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the global strategic interests of American imperialism.
What emerges from the speech by the junior senator from Illinois is that the November election will not provide the American people with the opportunity to vote for or against war, but merely to choose which of the two colonial-style wars that US forces are presently fighting should be escalated…

Posted by: annie | Jul 16 2008 13:49 utc | 143

“There is no fixing system in any case.”
so, just keep voting in the blind hope it self corrects
brilliant strategy
good luck with that and hoping for your villain or as is more likely White Knight
How do people that vote with machines write in candidates for the Green Party, much less any other?
Machines that talley votes any way the operator chooses – Green Party or not – and care not for your intentions

Posted by: jcairo | Jul 16 2008 15:29 utc | 144