I was taken aback when Chomsky said this right after the election

[Ichingcarpenter]

I had such high HOPES, but now it makes as much sense as what George Carlin, Bill Hicks and
Frank Zappa almost the same thing in different ways in the historical record.


I will still vote for Obama since there is no real choice and the alternative is going over
to super fascism.


but I'm thankful for all the OWS that are awake to the real reality.

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Crop Circle]

2. kick n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Yep. n/t

[Fumesucker]

4. K&R

[hulka38]

5. K&R

[BlueIris]

6. Thanks. nt

[PETRUS]

7. K&R

[geckosfeet]

8. Lula - Brazil's Lula da Silva shaves beard in cancer battle

Brazil's Lula da Silva shaves beard in cancer battle

Lula was shaved by his wife Marisa Leticia ahead of his next round of chemotherapy, which can make a patient's hair fall out.

Pictures released by the former leader's press office show him bald and beardless - but still with a mustache.

His doctors have said his chances of recovery from cancer are "very good".

May Lula be well.

[bigtree]

9. brazil?

____ what makes him believe brazil's new populist's idealistic ambitions will fare any better against their establishment's than our former community organizer president's? What makes her background any more appealing than Obama's?

Seriously, the only thing that makes brazil's new president popular right now is she's just begun to confront brazil's entrenched and corrupt political system. The comparison with our Democratic American president is disingenuous at best.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Yes, Obama was a 'community organizer' in Chicago

and Lula was a union organizer in Brazil who had death threats and attempts on his life, arrested by the State and sent to prision.

Obama's path gave me so much hope but now disillusion has set in. Lula never bought into the Bilderberg Group as did the other.

Lula also said fuck you to the IMF.....in fact told Portugal to say Fuck you
to the IMF.. now Obama on the other hand........ well if you don't know what side he's on then you are not paying attention. So yes....Obama vs Lula..... is fair.

[bigtree]

18. entirely different countries

entirely different political systems.

Ridiculous comparison.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FedUp_Queer]

80. How about you throw that red herring back...not edible.

What Chomsky was saying, and he was dead on, is that Obama's crap about "only in America" is exactly that, crap. Lula, a peasant, union organizer, when to prison, never went to college, gives lie to what O(GOP)bama was saying.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. American Exceptionalism is BUNK

That't the problem you are having.

[Shining Jack]

162. Ah!

Talk about being ridiculous. :rofl:

[Pacifist Patriot]

165. LOL! You get the point, but then you don't. That's great stuff.

[haikugal]

98. I have found myself wondering how true this claim by Obama is.

He has been groomed. Voting either party is a losing proposition, both are owned.

[truedelphi]

102. I accept every word you say

Obama did nothing but lie when he ran for office. He said he wasn't DLC, and then every one of his more important appointments went to either DLC people like Hillary Clinton. Or Big Financial People, like Geithner and Summers, or Big GMO people, like Mike Taylor and Valsick.

And it has become increasingly clear that these appointees do not work for Mr Obama -- Mr Obama works for them.

[roguevalley]

17. actually, you miss the biggest point. other places elect actual

people like you and me who don't live ten feet up the corporate poop shoot. Obama had a lot of populist hopes riding on him but he is a product of the machine as much as anyone else.

[bigtree]

20. Brazil isn't like America

politically or socially. Yet, there are plenty of corporate influences on which the government relies to facilitate the nation's fragile and broken economy. In fact, I believe the relationships between industry and government in Brazil would make our President look like the outsider he really is with regards to business and industry in America.

SÃO PAULO, Brazil—President Dilma Rousseff was elected for the continuity she promised from her much-loved predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. But one thread of continuity that is becoming more apparent is also increasingly vexing—corruption . . .

Six Rousseff ministers, all of whom also served under da Silva, have been caught up in corruption scandals in the past six months.

June: Rousseff's powerful chief of staff resigns over accusations he took advantage of public office to reap millions through a private consulting business.
July: Transportation minister steps down amid allegations ministry officials charged commissions in exchange for transportation and infrastructure contracts.
August: Agriculture minister steps down after reports of widespread cash kickbacks throughout the ministry.
September: Tourism minister resigns following reports he used public funds for personal expenses.
October: Sports minister steps down amid allegations of kickbacks from social programs.
November: Labor minister denies accusations that ministry officials were taking kickbacks.

. . . Corruption is nothing new in Latin American politics and certainly not in its biggest country. But the opportunity for graft has grown during the nine-year government of the ruling Workers Party, a period in which economic growth filled public coffers with tax revenue and consolidated the hold of coalition parties over various ministries.


read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577032351817874044.html

[bvar22]

46. VIVA Democracy!!!

You are correct that The US and South America are very different.
For one thing,
they have Transparent, Fair, Verifiable Elections monitored by International agencies.
We don't have that here,
and neither Political party is interested in giving that to us.
So, we have a lot of work to do.

The Populist Reforms sweeping across Latin America gives me hope for The World!
They have accomplished near bloodless revolutions!
They have successfully taken their countries back from the Oligarchs and predatory Global Corporations,
including the IMF!

"The worst enemy of humanity is U.S. capitalism. That is what provokes uprisings like our own, a rebellion against a system, against a neoliberal model, which is the representation of a savage capitalism. If the entire world doesn't acknowledge this reality, that nation states are not providing even minimally for health, education and nourishment, then each day the most fundamental human rights are being violated."
----Bolivian Reform President Evo Morales

FDR said much the same thing in 1944 with his Economic Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, FDR and THAT Democratic Party are long dead.
Do you believe that the old Democratic Party of FDR/LBJ can be resurrected?
I hope so!
I would be willing to work for that!


Our neighbors to The South have given us the Blue Print for CHANGE.
It CAN happen here!

VIVA Democracy!
I pray we get some here soon.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Enthusiast]

96. Right on, bvar22 ! Right on, right on, right on!

VIVA Democracy!!!

[Number23]

108. Oh dear God...

You are correct that The US and South America are very different.
For one thing,
they have Transparent, Fair, Verifiable Elections monitored by International agencies.

There aren't enough face palms in the world...

Does it occur to you that the reason their elections are monitored is BECAUSE of corruption or much, much worse? South America is not the paragon of virtue the way you seem to need everyplace but America to be.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/Latin-America-Monitor/2011/1028/Ahead-of-Colombia-s-elections-violence-stalks-candidates
http://www.economist.com/node/12607338
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/colombia/7842303/Colombia-presidential-vote-deadly-violence-on-election-day.html
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/latin-america-caribbean/guatemala/B024-guatemalas-elections-clean-polls-dirty-politics.aspx
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/electricpower/State-owned_companies_involved_in_alleged_vote-buying_scheme

Here's a PDF about vote buying in Argentina, an area I have spent much time in - http://lasa-2.univ.pitt.edu/LARR/prot/fulltext/vol39no2/Brusco.pdf

PLEASE read something besides DU.

[jefferson_dem]

129. A joke, right?

Brazil is making progress but it is not quite the social-political utopia you would claim. Read the Amnesty report (and others which I won't link to) to fully appreciate how far Brazil actually lags behind ... the USA. http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/brazil/report-2010

"near bloodless revolutions..." uh huh.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Enthusiast]

97. PLUS ONE!

"It seems like the apologists for the president are almost all addicted to right-wing propaganda."

I noticed that too.

[sendero]

89. Yes.

... it is not controlled by a corporate oligarchical system. We get it.

[ashling]

90. Which of these is not like the other

That is the POINT.

[sabrina 1]

117. That's another difference, the corrupt are held accountable

in South American countries, war criminals, and corrupt 'ministers' have to step down and face prosecution. Here our war criminals and corrupt officials, go on to become College Professors and can run again for office with backing from Wall Street. Or get a job on TV.

And we still cannot leave them alone. Still trying to destroy what they are trying to build up. We have a rotten, corrupt, totally broken system here where crime pays and decency is frowned on, seen as a threat. Read the Wikileaks cables eg, to see what the US thinks of one of the world's most respected Justices who presides over the European Court of Human Rights. They DESPISE him! Our Government, who points fingers at others, slammed this brilliant and humane man because he insists on adhering to the Geneva Conventions. And no, it was NOT the Bush gang, it was THIS administration. Decent, law-abiding Human Rights judges are hated by our current government.

Meanwhile in S. America, they are finally bringing THEIR war criminals, most of them OUR allies, to justice after decades of waiting. Maybe there is hope for us yet.

[Shining Jack]

164. +1000!

Absolutely!

[caseymoz]

157. Whether it's not like America or not is irrelevant to the point.

Being that Obama's statement, "only in America" could this happen is a gross absurdity. For a comparison a comparison to refute this, a country needs be "like" America only in being a sovereign natio -state. Whether it's different otherwise is irrelevant. Your rebuttals would be relevant if Obama said, "only in America among countries like America can this happen," or "only in America can this happen without rampant corruption." But he didn't say either of those, did he?

It Lula's quality as a leader also has no bearing on this point.

Since you also brought up Brazil's fragile economy, (unlike ours which is thriving, and which never in recent memory was almost brought to collapse by corrupt and corporate influence), how is it that Brazil was almost tapped to bail out Greece? And it's just hilarious that you can look at Brazil, or anywhere else now and say it's not like us due to its fragile economy.

Lastly, I'm guessing that you think the US is unlike Brazil due to the corruption, but it looks to me like this is no slight problem in our country, either. The difference largely is that corporations have the government alter laws and regulations so that there are no charges, even though country definitely sees the effects of corruption.

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Lula is a male, kid. Not 'her background' his background...

Do you even know who and what we are discussing here? She? Really? Did you read the OP at all?

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

53. Man, you're still the same.

Dilma Rousseff-President of Brazil

[suffragette]

61. The large size of the picture doesn't change the fact that Bluenorthwest

was correct.
Chomsky was referring to Lula da Silva, who was the president at that time.

The poster's response which focused on the current president of Brazil left me with the same question Bluenorthwest posed above.

[FedUp_Queer]

81. In fairness...

he is referring to Lula's successor, Dilma Rousseff

[dotymed]

107. That is really coincidental.

Lula, Chavez and Castro all have cancer.

Especially with Lula and Chavez... . Populist Presidents each with the peasants concerns placed first. Both countries are big oil exporters whose wealthy class has been marginalized. Many more things in common....

[loudsue]

114. And Teddy Kennedy died ot it last year, and three of the most liberal

people I've ever known have died of brain tumors in the past 3 years.

It's enough to make you wonder.

[Fokker Trip]

121. Community organizer indeed. Veeery good for the resume,

Yes Obama is one of the people, of course he is.

Your country is not a democracy. Bush was handed the presidency by the supreme court, hmmm where else does that happen? in police states perhaps? Obama might as well be president of Goldman Sachs given how he filled his cabinet and the government with ex-Goldman Sackers.

The US has done all that it can to keep right wing dictators in power in SA. Google Chile and Pinochet, that's what the US did and does. Brazil is no different.

Obama is just another corporate puppet.

[EFerrari]

153. Fail.

[sarcasmo]

10. Corporate controlled Empire in which we live does not allow for peasants

to rise to power.

[Ichingcarpenter]

15. They are there but are marginalized at every step unless

They sell out along the way.

Everyone during life's journey sells their soul a little or a lot along the way,
We all have vices and faults.......EVERYONE......

Nature abhors a vacuum, being for left or right, up or down,in or out.

I see real hope because of the OWS and the political system's vacuum and
a new type of leader and leadership stepping up based on something that's been truly lacking in society which people are awakening to.

There are many coming forward ..... Pay attention to the nomination process and local, State and Federal level.

Go to the 'party' functions ....but ask how they invite.

The Tea Party high jacked their party with Idiots
I think we are smarter than that.

The two party system needs to be destroyed but that's all the US has right now. The OWS don't operate like that, nether does Wikileaks nor Anonymous. A constitutional convention is needed to discuss what this nation wants to be, but that course is better than oppression guided by violence.

[defendandprotect]

60. OWS's message is that BOTH parties are finished ---

No one -- least of all this massive movement -- is going to stand against Obama

and his corporate agenda -- and then either vote for him or the GOP!


We have a huge liberal voting bloc -- it should be used to reinforce that statement --

that collusion between both parties with elites/corporations will no longer be tolerated!


Any vote for the "lesser evil" will do what it has done consistently over 40 years and

more which was to move the party and Congress further to the right.


The liberal vote - the OWS -- are looking to move to the left! Let's go -- !!


We need a challenger to Obama in 2012!!

[dotymed]

166. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

In the absence of a challenger what do you propose we do? It does not seem that we will get one (Bernie) and not voting, IMO, will create the possibility of more tea-party victories. I HATE voting the lesser-of-two-evils, but I see no alternative. Any suggestions?

[Itchinjim]

12. Sorry Noam,

Ralph already has a lock on the "No difference between the Democrats and Republicans" meme.

[bengalherder]

64. And no less than Gore Vidal was talking about it in the 80's....

I bet Noam said it before the scary unholy Ralph.

[liberalmike27]

72. The First Step

Is to let go of the republican/democratic paradigm. Noam, and Ralph are right. Perhaps imprecise--but basically correct. There is a slight difference, and the things we want changed, anti-war, less globalizing away the good jobs, decent living wage pay, and benefits, they are both in agreement.

I like to say the democrats tend to be corporatist, with the slightest conscience.

[FedUp_Queer]

82. Who cares who says it. It's correct. My God the toadies are out in force today.

[jefferson_dem]

126. Chomsky has been parroting this tired old line for a half century.

:boring:

... and living proof that "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

[aikoaiko]

13. And yet, 2000 - 2008, and therefor now, would have been much better if a Dem. had been elected

Sure, not fundamentally different, but better. And that matters.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. Yes it matters .. but we can do better than this

You know that, I know that.....and I think the OWS know that....LOL


But everyone wants a real choice vs a choice between two toilet papers made from the same tree.

[aikoaiko]

24. Agreed. We can do better.

[KittyWampus]

105. "we can do better than this" LOL! Yeah, in your magical fairy world where politics

doesn't involve an opposition.

Cynics are part of the problem. And underlying their cynicism is a desperate need to feel superior to others.

[roguevalley]

19. if we settle, we lose. why do we always have to settle? I dream

of something much larger. But then, I can remember the Kennedys.

[aikoaiko]

23. Why do we settle? Because everyone settles in the end. Some people need to settle a little more.

We can still work for changes, both big and small.

I'm not sure Chomsky would consider the Kennedys role models for change.

[Lorien]

67. There's no rule that says that we have to settle

we still have free will.

[aikoaiko]

93. It seems to me that in a democracy every settles at least a little.

The problem is when the masses must settle much more than the few.

[defendandprotect]

58. Right -- OWS isn't going to push a vote for "lesser evil" in 2012 ... they're moving to LEFT --

And that's away from Obama -- and away from GOP!

Eventually, a challenger to Obama should rise from OWS -- a strong challenger --

not supported or pre-bribed or pre-owned by corporate money or our MIC!


Don't get it that anyone would look at these massive crowds in the streets --

understand that 80% of the public wants an end to the wars --

76% of Americans want MEDICARE FOR ALL -- more when you include Catholic Latinos!

Same huge numbers who undersdtand that government/Congress/elections have been

made "dysfunction" --

AND RECOGNIZE THE HUGE LIBERAL VOTING BLOC ---

And then suggest that they're ... sigh, ho hum ... going to vote again for Obama!!


:nuke:



Liberals are NOT going to vote for anyone on the right -- they're already complaining

about Obama being corporate and RW --

Liberals need a challenger to take their votes to --

not more of the same "lesser evil" voting which only moves the party and Congress

further to the right!


OWS is having an impact -- so can we if we amass the liberal vote!

[Lorien]

65. We had better find a challenger. Many of my Dem friends here in town are talking about

voting for Ron Paul as an "anti-status quo" vote, even though they don't agree with his platform, because they won't vote for a corporate choice. That's worrisome. We need a solid challenger on the left.

[Dutchmaster]

75. Ron Paul has some solid policies that are attractive to some liberals.

His stance on ending the wars and reigning in American imperialism are damn close to getting my vote if a socially progressive candidate doesn't emerge at some point. As a pacifist I have to strongly consider him because of his anti-war stance. For anyone whom the wars are their primary issue, then Paul is a logical choice.

[Ichingcarpenter]

76. He's a dinosaur throw back.

to what the planet needs.

But he expresses the frustration

[Fokker Trip]

125. Paul says he say he wants to close US bases all over the world.

I think he means it and if that was all he ever did in office, that would be enough to justify supporting him. Maybe not to the 300 million who live in the US, but y'all have been running rough shod over the world for quite a while now and maybe its time those 700 plus bases were closed.

I really dislike his social policies, but if he stopped US global military expansion and violence, it would be a very good thing.

Its likely that American Exceptionalism is preventing most Americans from seeing this. Its jammed down your throats from such an early age its like knowing that the earth is round. Useful tool for the MIC.

[Lorien]

66. Agreed. nt

[oldhippydude]

28. i remember 2000

2 Yale guys... both skull and bones.. still don't think Kerry would have made W's mistakes.. yes we are better under Dems... after all we lived through 8 years of the alternative..

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Kerry vs Bush was 2004, not 2000

So I have to ask, do you in fact remember 2000? That was Gore and Bush. Not Kerry.

[12AngryBorneoWildmen]

54. WOW! Rag Momma Rag

Give the guy a break. His username admits he's old. And do YOU even read the responses. bigtree referred to the 'new president' and did not that trigger a little 'look back'. You pimped me on my second post, I believe, in the most condescending fashion that I will never forget. How could I? The same shit spews from same oracle (scratch that) orifice on a regular basis. My recommendation: WHOLE GRAIN

[oldhippydude]

94. yah got me..

your right

[Union Scribe]

152. A Dem was elected.

He didn't become president, but he was elected.

[bigwillq]

14. K and R

:thumbsup:

[Fantastic Anarchist]

21. As usual, Chomsky is right.

He has that ability to really see past all the hoopla.

I admit, even though I'm usually cynical, I was taken in by the "Hope/Change" thing. The marketing was just that good.

[oldhippydude]

26. while the marketing was good..

please remember W. will probably go down in history as the absolute worst POTUS.. while the message was enticing, it was more like voters were running from a flaming building.. it was as much what are you running from, as it was what are you running to..

[Fantastic Anarchist]

32. You are absolutely right.

It was more like a perfect combination.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

22. Oh, and a hearty kick and rec.

[Peace Patriot]

25. Evo Morales was a very poor, Indigenous coca leaf farmer who rose to become...

...head of the coca leaf farmers' union, thence to president of Bolivia. He is one of the great leaders of the leftist democracy movement that has been winning elections all over Latin America. He is a member of a race that, as late as the 1960s, were not permitted to walk on the sidewalks in Bolivia because they were brown-skinned.

Hugo Chavez was so poor as a child, they couldn't afford baseballs and bats in baseball-crazy Venezuela. He and his friends had to play baseball with sticks and rocks. One of his vows as president was to provide equipped baseball fields to every poor community in Venezuela. The only opportunity for poor youth in a Venezuela run by the rich oil elite was the military. Chavez joined, rose through the ranks, got an education, formed a leftist reading group among his fellow officers and eventually tried to revolt against elite rule, after a massacre of poor protestors--in a failed coup that landed him in jail. In jail, he became a hero to the poor majority in Venezuela and was later elected president of the country. He is, no question, THE pioneer of the leftist revolution in Latin America.

One of the keys to understanding this astonishing, peaceful revolution is the friendship and alliance that arose between Chavez and Lula da Silva, which included monthly meetings between the two to discuss issues and a commitment to social justice--to "raising all boats"--within their countries and in the region. BOTH came from backgrounds of poverty and oppression--a phenomenon that is actually common in the New Latin America.

Jose Mujica, president of Uruguay, drives a beat up old VW and owns almost nothing (a small flower farm, his home, where he lives with his wife of many years). In his youth, he was a member of a leftist group that fought the fascist junta in Uruguay and was imprisoned and tortured by the junta.

Fernando Lugo, Paraguay's beloved "bishop of the poor"--who spent most of his career as a bishop living with, and advocating for, the poorest of the poor--farmer workers, campesinos--overturned 60 years of rightwing rule (including a heinous dictatorship) when he was elected president of Paraguay in 2008.

The current president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, successor to Lula da Silva, belonged to a leftist group fighting the fascist junta horrors in Brazil and was imprisoned and horribly tortured by them.

All of the hideous dictatorships that imprisoned and/or tortured these future presidents of Latin American countries did so with the enthusiastic backing of the U.S. government, including U.S. "training" of some of the torturers.

Daniel Ortega led the revolution against the beastial oppression of the U.S.-backed fascists in Nicaragua (the Reagan Horrors). He is now president of Nicaragua.

Not all of these leaders of revolutions or current/recent leftist presidents in Latin America came from stark poor backgrounds. Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, was educated as an economist in the United States, for instance--but all of them are advocates for the poor majority and none of them would have had any chance to rise to the presidency--and indeed were in mortal peril--when the U.S. was holding sway in these countries. Michelle Batchelet, until recently president of Chile, was from an upper middle class background. Her father was tortured and murdered by the U.S.-backed fascist dictatorship in Chile (the Nixon-Kissinger Horrors) and she had had to flee Chile as a young woman, or she would have been next. Her father's crime? Advocating for the poor majority!

"ONLY IN 'AMERICA" can people of poor backgrounds rise to the presidency? What humbug! The sad truth is that "only in the United States" (which is NOT all of America) and only in U.S. client states in Latin America--such as Colombia and Honduras--are the corporatists and war profiteers allowed to run rampant over the poor majority--murdering them and thieving from them! Further, Obama would never have been permitted to enter the White House if he hadn't agreed to serve these corporate/war profiteer interests--which he is very plainly doing. The advocates of the poor, here, were assassinated in the 1960s--JFK, Martin Luther king, RFK, 1,2,3, bang-bang, shoot-shoot--and we have never been the same since. This paved the way for the rich to get richer and for horrible wars as well horrible, horrible policies in Latin America that continue to this day in the countries that have been unable to free themselves from U.S. rule!

And hear this: The key to these leftist victories in Latin America is TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS. We have lost transparent vote counting here, to Corporate Rule. It's all done now with 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that we are forbidden to review. Latin America has gone the other way--TOWARD transparent elections and majority rule, and consequently toward social justice, peace and cooperation. While our "New Deal" is dismantled by the rich, Latin America is gaining their "New Deal," at long last--because they did their civic homework on honest elections.

I believe that Barack Obama was actually elected in 2008--on the hopes and dreams of the U.S. majority for peace and justice--but the problem is that he was also PERMITTED TO BE elected, probably as the cypher into which our corporate rulers hoped to bury the memory of the Bush Junta with its vast crimes and vast theft. I believe that they also shaved his mandate, just in case he had any remaining intention to serve the majority. THAT is what 'TRADE SECRET' vote counting has done--it allows the Corporate Rulers to play our political system like a piano, setting up long term narratives and scenarios for more corporate resource wars and more looting by the rich.

"Only in America"--or rather, "only in the United States"--can one, private, far rightwing-connected corporation--ES&S, which bought out Diebold--gain control of 80% of the voting systems in the country, using 'TRADE SECRET' code with virtually no audit/recount controls!

The sad and tragic truth is that, in the Americas, "only in the United States" and in the few Latin American countries still bullied by the United States, would the theft of our birthright--our right to vote--be tolerated, and, indeed, "only in the United States" would this assault on the foundation of democracy be UTTERLY IGNORED by all of our political leaders and the corporate press.

I have to laugh (bitterly) when they say that Hugo Chavez is "undemocratic." Hugo Chavez was elected in THE most honest and transparent election system in the Americas! And he is hated here--and relentlessly slandered and reviled--for that very reason: he is an honestly elected, GENUINE advocate of the poor majority who takes his duty to the majority more seriously than any president in the Americas since FDR!

On the other hand, there is not one public official in this country--from Barack Obama on down--who can prove that he or she was actually elected! Not one! That is how bad this "TRADE SECRET' vote counting system is!

We wonder why our interests are not being served, no matter whom we appear to elect? THIS is why.

Important note: Latin America also has bad, bad corporate media--worse than here--and billions of our tax dollars infused into Latin American elections for rightwing causes and candidates--yet they've been able to elect genuine leftist leaders throughout the region. The difference: honest vote counting. "The people" can overcome corporate money and media IF the votes are counted honestly in the PUBLIC venue.

If we truly want to change things, so that the poor majority is served, we need to start with the corporate-run voting systems!

It really doesn't matter whether our political representatives come from poor or working class backgrounds. Great leftist leadership can come from any quarter (as FDR so resoundingly proved). President Obama's remark--about "only in America"--was not only wrong; it was irrelevant. Who cares what anyone's background is, if they stay true to democracy and serve "the people"? It is a form of prejudice--and demagoguery--to tout a poor background and then serve the rich, once you've made it to the top. Democracy makes it possible to elect leaders who serve the poor majority, and the interests of the country as a whole. TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING is the bottom line of democracy. No reform is possible without it. We must get that power back--we MUST!

[bigtree]

29. the corruption in those countries runs rampant

leftist leaders or not.

I don't think you could begin to tolerate the corruption of political systems in the major Latin American nations. I think you see 'leftist leader' and believe it means some sort of ideal of purity and righteousness that transcends all of the corruption that surrounds it. Apply the same standards that you would to this Democratic administration to the governments of any Latin American nations and you will see that it makes no sense at all to compare the moral state of our democracy and our political system to theirs -- much less to celebrate any of them above our own.

[FedUp_Queer]

83. Corruption by definition is illegal.

In the US corporations do exactly what they do in any other country. Except here we call it lobbying, and it's legal.

Corruption: inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery).

[eppur_se_muova]

87. The corruption was there long before there were any leftist leaders.

The former Spanish colonies were treated as militarily occupied territories for centuries. The military and police held near-absolute powers that would only yield to bribery or "connections". This culture of corruption became too deeply ingrained to be eliminated by any single change in government, even independence from Spain. Today's leaders, whatever their politics, are surrounded by corruption, have grown up with it, and have acquired power within a corrupt system -- but that does not mean they are necessarily to blame for it, anymore than Obama is to blame for the mess he inherited from Bu**sh**. One should not judge the "moral state" of these leaders as being the same as that of their political system, particularly if they are struggling to change that system (not all are doing so, or at least equally well, of course).

(The same applies to the Philippines, another former Spanish colony.)

One could argue, with some plausibility, that the rise of the left in Latin America is largely in response to the corruption. The difficulty in making this argument is that post-colonial governments have tended to be both corrupt and authoritarian, and it is the latter which is more oppressive to revolutionaries. Political revolution has tended to lead to the overthrow of authoritarian factions, without necessarily addressing systemic corruption, so corruption lingers.

[Fokker Trip]

128. What makes you think that the US political structure is not just as corrupt?

"moral state of our democracy", lol. Your "democracy" is thoroughly immoral, its just shinier on the outside and you country has way more weapons.

[snagglepuss]

30. Very powerful post and really ought to have it's own thread.

Bookmrkd. Thank for posting.

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. Thank you.....A MUST READ

I Think Argentina spoke the first word and led the way.

[Ichingcarpenter]

37. TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING is what this site

started with ..... thank you.

IT REALLY SUCKS NOW AND HAS BEEN PROVEN THAT THE STALINISTIC
VOTE IS REAL....... Andy died telling us that.

[CanSocDem]

41. Excellent post. (k&r)

[Agony]

47. Right on!

"and billions of our tax dollars infused into Latin American elections for rightwing causes "

defund the NED.

[arikara]

63. What an excellent and interesting piece

it really should be its own topic.

[arikara]

71. Your response needs to be

a thread of its own. Seriously.

[arikara]

73. Whoops

I got an error message the first time and didnt think it worked. Oh well... nothing wrong with a double compliment.

[Desertrose]

77. Excellent excellent post!

Thank you...and I agree..it should be it's own thread!!


"Democracy makes it possible to elect leaders who serve the poor majority, and the interests of the country as a whole. TRANSPARENT VOTE COUNTING is the bottom line of democracy. No reform is possible without it. We must get that power back--we MUST!"

[Enthusiast]

99. Wonderful post!

This should be an new thread, an original post.

[bvar22]

146. Viva Democracy!!!

I hope we get some here soon!

:patriot:



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Orsino]

27. ""Not a dime's worth of difference" isn't a precisely correct critique...

...but there's an essential truth here, in Chomsky's words.

[LWolf]

33. I wasn't. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. For being here so long like you

and such a low post count for so many years.

Tell me why you were not surprised?


I can't get a grip on your philosophy,

Not saying anything..... but I'd would like to know.

[LWolf]

56. I was not surprised

because I'm familiar with Chomsky, and I knew what Obama was, and is.

My screen name fits. I'm a lone wolf in many ways, including politically. I'm that introvert who trusts few, and trusts my own judgement more than anyone else's. I'm not impressed by, nor much affected by, rhetoric and propaganda, and that's what most speeches of any kind are. I'm always evaluating someone's words by how specific they are, by what generalities they spout that will allow them to twist them to fit opposing actions, by how well they walk their talk.

I recognized Obama as a neo-liberal 1%er from the very beginning. As a matter of fact, here at DU in '08, when so many were telling me frantically, "but he's the NOT DLC candidate!!!" I clearly saw his centrism. It wasn't funny to me that one particular DLC DUer laughed and posted that while he was supporting Clinton, this argument was amusing to him, since Obama's positions aligned perfectly with the DLC.

I was a pariah for pointing this out.

It was clear, if you were looking for it, what Obama was all about. He admired Reagan's "transformational" presidency, the way he opposed the "excesses" of the 70s. I interpreted "excesses" to mean those things the liberal left worked for and achieved. I was right; we've seen a faster, more aggressive rollback under Obama than we did even under GWB.

When asked in a Fox News interview what he thought Republicans got better than Democrats, he responded with...education. And said that teachers would be unhappy with him. An understatement. I'm a teacher.

He was a hawk on the war on terror, and left unilateral action against Pakistan open.

I don't know why ANYONE was, or is, surprised at the direction his administration has taken. It was clear from the moment he started making appointments, before he was even inaugurated.

My philosophy? Politically? I'm to the left of most Americans. I'm to the left of the Democratic Party. I didn't used to be, and I haven't really moved. The party has "left" me behind.

What else can I tell you?

[Ichingcarpenter]

78. Brother in Arms

thanks....for the input

I do think the world is waking up.

[LWolf]

84. You're welcome, and I hope so. nt

[Enthusiast]

103. "I was a pariah for pointing this out."

You are certainly no pariah now. We now see what you knew then.

[jefferson_dem]

132. Anyone who didn't see Obama's post-ideological dogmatism by 2008...

wasn't paying attention. Go back and watch his 2004 speech at the DNC and see how consistent he's been.

[Maven]

159. For the last time, there is no such thing as "post-ideological" or "post-partisan"

Those are more bullshit marketing words invented by team Obama to disguise what the man actually stands for.

EDIT: On second thought, maybe Obama truly is "post-partisan" in the way that all "new Democrats" are, i.e., he represents the singular corporate money party that masquerades as two separate opposing parties.

[Fokker Trip]

139. Great post LWolf. You took the words right out of my mind.

Barack "Trojan horse" Obama. A very clever campaign and a great set of speeches.

[L. Coyote]

35. REC

all very good, except perhaps "secret society of secret government" might be more accurate.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

42. good one

Please, please, don't e-pepper me :rofl:

[Ichingcarpenter]

48. Any way.... we've seen over the years.....

from those that told us the truth and are dead now in this nation and those
that continue to tell us the lies.

Truth and reality of truth is what every poet
song writer, visual artist has continued to try
and relate to society.


I don't think the Nation needs a Enema..........you know
It needs a tab of LSD

[Alameda]

40. We had hope! Don't forget a majority of Americans want and voted

for change. That says something powerful. We need to work harder, but I think there is real hope via the OWS movement.

[Ghost Dog]

69. Yes, the campaign clearly knew what voters wanted all right.

... And what most of those who didn't or couldn't vote presumably wanted even more.

[femrap]

43. K and R nt

[WillyT]

44. K & R !!!

:kick:

[piratefish08]

45. kick

wow.

[Zorra]

50. It's pretty hard to honestly disagree with that. nt

[MilesColtrane]

51. I can't wait for the first primary.

[Ichingcarpenter]

52. In Soviet Union we all have democratic primaries.

Just like you

We count vote just like you,.

In a controlled way

[Ken Burch]

100. If Obama is unopposed, that won't mean we're all down with him

It will mean that progressives have given up on this party.

It will be nothing to gloat about.

[MilesColtrane]

136. Re: Progressives giving up

Well, you can't force a horse to drink water, as they say.

I'm not looking forward to gloating, just to clearing some tombstones out of my Ignore list.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a2liberal]

55. K&R (n/t)

[Gregorian]

57. When an election costs a billion bucks, what do you expect?

Joe Schmo and his bandwagon? No, you get keenly honed pros with support crews like no F1 racer ever dreamt of.

[SunSeeker]

156. Exactly! Bash the system, not Obama...unless you want a fascist

Republican elected President, like we had in 2000 and 2004. Until we get money out of politics (and fix our voting machines!), Obama is the best we can do.

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. knr

[defendandprotect]

62. Hard to figure this ...

I will still vote for Obama since there is no real choice and the alternative is going over
to super fascism.


but I'm thankful for all the OWS that are awake to the real reality.


What Chomsky is saying is that there is little difference between parties and candidates --

they are property of elites/corporations.


The message of OWS is that BOTH parties are finished.

OWS is looking -- as we all are -- to move to the LEFT.

No one who is "awake to the real reality" is going to vote for Obama or anyone further

to the right. Why would they? That anyone who sees and reads the criticism of Obama and

his corporate agenda would suggest such a thing amazes me.


We've had 40 years and more of voting for the "lesser evil" -- all that has ever done is

move the party and the Congress further to the right. Why would we continue to do that?



We need a challenger to Obama in 2012 -- we have a massive liberal voting bloc.

This is a liberal nation --

80% of the public want an end to the wars which, btw, are bankrupting the nation.

76% and more want MEDICARE FOR ALL --

MOVE TO THE LEFT --

[Ichingcarpenter]

74. I like rational discussions with a touch of

freedom within and freedom with out.

[defendandprotect]

85. That doesn't quite explain your declaration you will vote for "lesser evil" ...

[Ichingcarpenter]

70. Hey now, hey now .......we won't let them win

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adi1T5BxvJ8

[evrstrong]

122. "get to know the feeling of liberation and release" - perfect!

Thank you.

[fishwax]

79. k/r

:kick:

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

86. Nihilist.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

88. To elaborate on this

Does he really think Brazil's a better place. The difference between rich and poor is so much more pronounced in that country. How many military coupes have they had.

For all our country's faults I'd rather live here than Brazil.

[DeSwiss]

91. K&R

Theater of Jackals

Money, violence and politics, the three jackals that hunt together, and feast on society's craving for prohibited commodities, alcohol in the thirties and cocaine today. The politicians run the perimeter of the human herd, guiding it this way and that through speeches and legislation, providing distraction, the killers enforce the code of the pack, assuring that the money always flows in the direction of the jackal pack. The jackals are a permanent fixture of global life now, whether the commodity is crude oil under indigenous people's soil, or soil itself upon which to grow palm oil trees in Indonesia.

Narco-trade money/violence/politics depress and frighten everyone on both sides of the border. Mexicans are depressed that their country never seems to escape these things. Americans are frightened that the soft psychological violence of their corporate state could be overshadowed by hard border style violence, that it will somehow seep across like all those brown people seem to have done over the years.

Meanwhile, the corporations drive the politicians who manage America's political consciousness, steering it around a thousand truths toward extraction of maximum profit from the American herd. The herd, honestly speaking, regards politics mostly as spectacle -- some emotionally, others as entertainment, if they think about it at all. Let's not mistake the Tea Party noise or yammer about sham healthcare "reform," both of which are theater state productions, for political involvement by "the people."

Those Americans who seldom give politics (or anything else) serious thought, simply accept whatever is spoon-fed by media and The Complex, an entity so omniscient as to be beyond their comprehension. This is quite OK with most working class Americans. They have much in common with the average working Mexican, who simply ignores politics, out of disgust, and/or semi-illiteracy. Unlike Americas who have not awakened to the slow motion coup that successfully overthrew their government decades ago, working class Mexicans here understand such defeat. They've had it for breakfast, lunch and dinner for over a hundred years. I have never met anyone here who did not grasp that drug money and elite business cartels own the government because they paid cash for it. Dope and business elites pay for candidates' campaigns and the politicians in office, the same as corporate cartel money buys our Congress.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/03/cantina-tolteca.html">Joe Bageant, Cantina Tolteca, March 2010

RIP, Joe Bageant - 1946-2011

[OnyxCollie]

92. K&R. nt

[Enthusiast]

95. Kicked and recommended! nt

[Azathoth]

101. Chomsky is such a fucking hypocrite. I got to the part about attending "elite universities"

before I tuned out. Forget the fact that Obama was a black kid from a middle-class family who got admitted to top universities based on academic merit, as opposed to the legacy admissions route so common among Republican "job creators." The fact that this shit is tumbling out of the mouth of Mr. MIT himself has to be a new low in the annals of condescending sanctimony. But like Limbaugh, Chomsky knows his audience, and the hypocrisy just feeds their enthusiasm.

[KittyWampus]

106. Thank You for that. The irony escapes Chomsky's acolytes.

[yardwork]

110. You missed Chomsky's point. Obama's statement was false. Chomsky points it out.

It's not true that "only in America" could a person from a poor or minority background become president. It is a pervasive myth that America is the only nation that offers that kind of opportunity to everybody. In fact, as Chomsky points out, many other nations have actually overtaken us in this respect.

[pnwmom]

120. Chomsky's statement about the universities was false.

There are no particular universities that serve as training grounds for the Presidency. Nixon went to a Quaker college called Whittier. Carter went to Georgia Tech. Go through the list and you'll see many others.

[MFrohike]

158. Off the top of my head

I will list undergrad and grad schools.

Obama - Columbia and Harvard
Bush - Yale and Harvard
Clinton - Georgetown and Yale
Bush sr - Yale
Reagan - Small CA school, name is escaping me right now
Carter - Naval Academy (Tech for grad school maybe)
Ford - Michigan
Nixon - Whittier and Duke
Johnson - Southwest State Teacher's College
Kennedy - Harvard and a little at Stanford Law
Eisenhower - West Point
Truman - None
FDR - Harvard
Hoover - Stanford

Those are what I remember off the top of my head. I do see a disproportionate number of Ivies on that list.

[Number23]

111. +a million. This entire thread and the jaw dropping ignorance within is simply astounding.

But like Limbaugh, Chomsky knows his audience, and the hypocrisy just feeds their enthusiasm.

[onpatrol98]

112. I see what you're saying, but

I'm taking the point to be that an average Joe Nobody can't become President. Yes, the president "had" humble beginnings...but, he was a rich guy when he ran. There's nothing wrong with that, but the real question is can someone here on DU or there in OWS, or even in the crazy tea party, run for President and win.

Even if you were able to raise a bit of money, the media could simply say that you were not a serious candidate and you can kiss participating in any debate goodbye. It's a sweet deal for our two party system, really. If you were a reasonable republican, if such a critter exists, MSNBC, would marginalized you. If you're democratic, Fox trashes you. If you're deemed less than credible, CNN simply ignores you. If you're really deemed unacceptable, even Fox will turn on it's own.

No one would ever hear your message. There are already like a hundred people running for president. How many have we heard of...Do we really trust the media system of today?

So, in this day and age, should we assume that IF you're getting media coverage, you're "approved" to run. You've been vetted as acceptable. I think if the powers to be could simply take away the nuisance of everyone's vote, they would. We want jobs. They want cheap labor, in any fashion they can squeeze by.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

115. Chomsky was referring to Bush versus Kerry.

But why let facts get in the way?

[Fokker Trip]

123. Do you really think that there is a difference? nt.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

167. No, I think it's the same shit shuffled around every four years.

Every election cycle the American people are presented with two candidates that have been heavily vetted by various interests, from Wall Street to the Military-Industrial Complex to the Parties themselves. As Chomsky himself has said, there is vigorous debate within a very narrow spectrum of acceptable opinion, and both candidates fall somewhere in that very narrow range. That range moves steadily rightward, by the way. Fifteen years ago, it would have been unthinkable to even entertain a debate about torture or "targeted killing." Now it's uncontroversial. Thirty years ago Medicare and Social Security were untouchable. It is now nearly a foregone conclusion that they will both be cut, and to hold them sacrosanct is a fringe position. And in Obama's case, he pursues policies that ten years ago would have been considered conservative. It's all the same shit.

[Fokker Trip]

145. Such contortions.

So Obama didn't attend elite universities? Why does the color of his skin matter?

Hypocrisy is Obama saying that he smoked cannabis and his attorney general is now prosecuting medical cannabis users more than GW Bush did. That's hypocrisy.

Obama went to elite universities and Chomsky points it out. How is that hypocrisy? How is it condescending?

Where did Chomsky talk about Obama's childhood? or how Obama actually got into university?

Wherever he came from, however he started out, Obama is now just another corporatist puppet. Chomsky is simply pointing out the fact that all presidents are now tools of the corporate state.

Look at who is in Obama's cabinet to see the corporate stamp there.

[leveymg]

161. It's what you do with that education that counts. Sure, Obama is a lesser evil, but Chomsky is

right about how the process offers no fundamental choices and no real hope of change from a system dominated by big banks and corporations. You can "tune out" all you like, but that doesn't make Chomsky a hypocrite. He appreciates the irony of teaching at MIT - believe me.

[mahina]

104. Um, Obama is not from the ruling class.

He was raised by a single mother. We all know how luxe that is for almost all of us, himself included.
He lived with her in a small apartment with his grandparents and sister.
I go by that building every day.
Ruling class? seriously?

Here he is walking in the neighborhood, taking a short break outside, when he visited her when she was so ill, right before the election.

Here are supporters hanging out in the grandma's lobby

Chomsky has a lot right, and big picture he is right, but Obama was raised in very middle class ohana.

Here's an article with photos of the building, and him walking in the neighborhood. It is not a fancy neighborhood AT ALL. Trust me, I live in it.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Oct/25/ln/hawaii810250357.html

That is just a fact.

[jefferson_dem]

133. Chomsky: ""He grew up in a privileged way..."

Oh, wait... That was Rick Perry.

Chomsky channels "Ni##erhead". :crazy:

[mahina]

144. He did go to a great school. I sent my kid there too, and we aren't rich by any perverse stretch.

If his Mom hadn't sent him to private school, he wouldn't have stood a chance, he'd be parking cars or waiting tables like the rest of our kids who get crappy educations in our fucked up public school system.

I went to public school here. It is a mess.

Anyway, if he hadn't gotten a great education, we wouldn't even be talking about him at all. People say that as if it shows he is priviledged. Makes me want to vomit!

[yardwork]

109. K&R. The myth of American exceptionalism is killing us.

[davidwparker]

113. Amen. Amen. Amen.

Until the Democrats, take back the Democratic part, the fascists will win.

I will not vote for the winner of the Democratic caucus in Iowa. History shows, this person is flawed.

I will not vote for anybody in the Democratic primary who does not have a HISTORY for voting for liberal causes.

[jefferson_dem]

134. Of course you won't vote for the Democrat.

That's obvious.

[jimlup]

116. But if you listen to Chomsky carefully you realize that he would vote for Obama too ...

At least that would be true if he lived in a contested state like I do (Michigan.) And he has said as much. I have a great deal of respect for this man.

[wildbilln864]

118. k&r! nt

[pnwmom]

119. Nixon went to Whittier. Carter went to Georgia Tech.

Those are just off the top of my head. There are no particular colleges that are the training ground for the Presidency.

[jefferson_dem]

124. Meh.

...a cute academic polemic from Chomsky but not really rooted in political reality. So he is not impressed that this man - Barack Obama - was actually elected president, receiving more votes that any other candidate in election history? Professor Chomsky again demonstrates that being a cynical linguist doesn't necessarily require a deep understanding of American politics.

[Fokker Trip]

137. Deep understanding of American politics? Cynical linguist?

So in other words, you believe that you have a great understanding of American politics and this topic is too complex for Chomsky.

Wow.

Its amazing the contortions that Obama supporters go through to continue to believe that he will be their savior.

Since 2000, all elections have been manipulated through computer voting, try looking at Bradblog for a start.

[jefferson_dem]

138. I didn't stutter.

Chomsky is a smart man ... but his political commentary often reflects a narrowly dogmatic perspective, rooted more in cynicism than reality.

Yes, I understand a good bit about American politics. ...enough to never expect a "savior" as president. Silly.

[Fokker Trip]

143. Stutter? Lost me there.

I don't see his perspective as cynical, nor do I see it as narrow or dogmatic. He has been digesting masses of information for a very long time and from this he calls it like he sees it. That may appear cynical to some. How is it narrow or dogmatic?

Obama not seen as a savior, check.

However you do have that large button as your sig and it only seems to show up in the posts of the most ardent Obama supporters. You must feel quite strongly about supporting him.

My use of the word savior isn't meant as a slur, it seemed that many folks felt this way after his camapign and election. I don't think it's silly at all, a lot of Americans still seem to think Obama will somehow save them. Sad really, not silly, as he was the perfect Trojan horse for the corporatists.

But it is just his opinion, as mine is mine and yours is yours. In the end if folks support either Obama or his challenger the corporate powers will just continue to ream the citizens of the country and the world.

[MNBrewer]

127. So choosing miniFascism over super Fascism isn't still choosing Fascism?

[Nye Bevan]

130. Sounds exactly like the "both parties are the same" brigade here (nt)

[jefferson_dem]

131. And equally as clueless.

[unkachuck]

135. "And equally as clueless."

....no, we've got clues, plenty of clues....

[gateley]

140. He's always so spot on. nt

[L0oniX]

141. K & R

[RoccoR5955]

142. Not me! I only voted for Obama because the alternative was totally unacceptable.

I learned my lesson of voting for third party here in the US back in 1980. I voted for Anderson, because Carter was unpopular, and Reagan was unacceptable. What did we get?
Since then I have never voted for a third party. They cannot win here in the US. Not the way that the current system is owned by the corporations.
Perhaps if there was a mass upheaval, as there is in #OWS, then, maybe I could be convinced. I believe that the 99% have the right idea, as they plan to run candidates in each congressional, and senatorial district, starting next year. We shall see if this takes off the ground or not.
If not, I'll vote for Obama, because NO RepubliCON will ever, in my life get my vote. Not after Reagan killed my brother!

[bertman]

147. REC. thanks for posting this. nt

[dash_bannon]

148. I Was Listening to Nader Speak

Ralph Nader proposed we create a watchdog organization of around 2,000 people per state, they pitch in enough to hire two people each to be watchdogs of Congress and Washington.

If we had an informed populace, we would have a more democratic society. It can happen here. :)

[Beacool]

150. In my case, you're preaching to the choir.

Didn't like the guy in 2008, don't like him now and I doubt that I will like him any better in the future.

:shrug:

[Azathoth]

151. You sure you're part of the choir? Chomsky's "logic" applies even more to the Clintons n/t

[Pryderi]

155. I hate Noam Chomsky

He's always going around stating the truth.

[dipsydoodle]

160. K & R

'nuff said.

[Doctor_J]

163. He and a number of others also said it BEFORE the election

I too had a lot of false hope