I marked “other” in the survey because outside of Connecticut Lamont’s victory will not matter.  Any voter who is not already decided based on party (whether Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, or another party) will not care who won in Connecticut in terms of who receives that voter’s mark.

As for Connecticut, I do not have enough information about voter sentiment in that state to know how the dynamics of a three-way contest will play out.

I believe it is obvious that with the GOPs support and Joe’s insistence on running as an independent after state Democrats rejected his latest reelection bid, Joe Lieberman is intended to be a ‘splinter’ issue.

Bob Geiger over at huffpo did a tally:

1) 27 of 43 Senate Dems support Lamont.
2) 10 Senate Dems can’t decide? (there was a vote in Conn. afterall) including: Baucus, Bingaman, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson, Levin, Lincoln, Mikulski, (Bill) Nelson and Sarbanes.
3) the rouge gallerie of DINOs for Lieberman include: Carper, Pryor, Salazar, (Ben) Nelson, Landrieu, and Inouye.

The grassroots have a lot culling to do. If your rep is listed above, give them a little counseling as to their future in the new Democratic Party.

You can either be part of the solution or part of the problem.

Hourglass is right, lets get rid of all the right wingers.

And stop with the bullshit --- these people are right of center, often far right of center, not centrist.  Roosevelt was a centrist. Henry Wallace was left of center (and not very).  By European standards and by any reasonable standards most American politicos are far right wingers.  Fascists are more liberal in Europe.  And by the way, by most reasonable standards Lamont is right of center. Let’s not make believe he is a progressive.

Now that doesn’t matter, what we need to do is move the dialogue left.

I find it encouraging whenever an individual breaks with the party and goes with his conscience on any issue. Especially one which he knows is unpopular.

Instead of jumping in front of a parade Lieberman has chosen to think of the security of the country by also calling for Rumsfeld to leave.

The arrogance of the Sec. of Defense in overriding the 10-year planning of the military in favor of his own experiment has cost thousands of lives — both Iraqi and US troops.

Too few troops to make safe neighborhoods has made Iraq/Afghanistan into another Vietnam fiasco.

Whattheheck illustrates my point.

I am always fascinated by the stupidity of Lieberman supporters who are trying to paint him as a rebel?

He’s a rebel, because he’s going against the Democratic establishment.... BUT Wait, Lieberman said he’s running as an independent because he refuses to bow to the will of a small group of ideological extremists bent on taking control of the party. Hmmmmm Implicitly including himself in the “mainstream.”

Last I heard being “mainstream” does NOT an “Independent thinker” make.

But what can any thinking person expect from Team Bush and its allies. They believe so much in the strategy of the “big lie.” It will always be their first weapon of choice.

And what a big, perposterous lie it is to call someone who is “fighting to maintain the status quo” an “independent thinker.” Especially when most of his thinking has been done in order to find a way to force his former party to follow him as he blindly follows the Repugnican lie machine.

Lieberman is the chutzpah typical of a consumate hypocrite.

Of course, being so ‘religious” means he could never own up to his back-stabbing, rules are not for me, tactics.

An some truly stupid people still buy into the notion that such a religious man would never stoop so low and do what he is doing for the sake of ego.

Even Regan with his mind clouded with alzheimer’s desease would be able to see how Lieberman has allowed himself to be blinded by his own sense of righteousness.

The Democratic party has a choice to make, and more of the official leadership better start backing up their choice with action.

In regards to the latest polls

I think the proper headline should have been.

LAMONT GAINS 15 points in a 3 way race with Lieberman and the Repugnican.

If we truly had an unbiased media free of domination from any one particular group, that is the headline we would have seen.

Instead we saw headlines pumping up Lieberman’s lead, even though it is considerably diminished from the lead he held in a similar poll taking early july when. Lamont only received 27% support instead of the current 42%.

LIEBERMAN WILL MOST LIKELY LOSE.

Here is why.

His support among the Independents is soft. The reasons why he is supported at such high numbers are identical to the reasons why he received such high #s early in the Dem. primary campaign.

Independents do NOT know Lieberman as a “candidate” in the PRESENT sense.

They have not been treated to a “truth campaign.” Independents haven’t had to focus on the issues like Democrats were forced to.

Once independents realize just what a vote for Lieberman means, they’re support will shift to Lamont just like it did among Democrat voters.

Independents in Conn. are NOT more conservative. In fact they are very Democratic in their beliefs BUT many are independent because they do NOT believe in party politics.

Once they realize electing Lieberman will send a man who feels utterly vindicated in his beliefs that he does NOT have to obey the will of the Connecticut voter, they will turn away from him.

He is no hero. He is a power-hungry, ego-driven man who refuses to give up his priviliged position in the Senate.

When that future majority of Independents coalesces with the Majority of Dems. it will be enough to deliver a slim victory to Lamont.

In a state like Connecticut, the Repugnicans are not a factor. Something they would be IF Independents were more conservative.

They could only make a difference if Lamont fails to swing the voters like he inevitably will.

Lamont’s victory demonstrates the beginning of the end of the rise of the so-called Conservatives.

A vote against Lieberman was a vote against the Iraq War. The 61% disapproval ranking against Bush’s handling of Iraq has opened a nascent political movement, motivated by “righteous indignation” or “moderate rage.”

...Odd how the Conservatives (I choose to use capital “C” to distinguish from the traditional definition of the word) blame weakness and a “pre 9/11 mindset” on the preceding Clinton era, as if someone else were to blame for their inability to find success or Bin Laden.

Politically convenient, such tactics really do demean the vaunted Conservatives. As we see the “security advantage” diminish--now only 7% more of the population believes Republicans would do a better job on the War on Terror. Considering the War on Terror is the creation of a bipartisan “War Party,” the business of who is believing who really doesn’t matter to me. Any public so readily fooled deserves neither peace nor security. If the pendulum is in fact swinging back, it won’t matter who gets labelled what, or by whom.

This is the freight train roaring down the political tracks, the 800 pound gorilla in the china shop War-makers from both parties don’t want the public to hear. Unfortunately, no amount of spin can really disguise the churning bloodbath US and Israeli militancy has created in the increasingly unstable Middle East.

There are limits to even the public’s vulnerability to spin. Media handlers like Rove presume that no amount of spin is ever enough. Yet rhetoric, slopped on however thick--simply can’t disguise the massive failure that Iraq has become. The President’s unchanging support for the war, and his abject denial of the sane who want Rumsfeld gone, is destroying his Administration. Too stubborn to let go, his whole upside-down, mood-elevated approach is proving to be complete inadequate in dealing with the crisis we face.
--from my Blog Post

Truthteir:

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I wouldn’t agree that this is the beginning of the end for the regugnican neocons or as you refer to them the Conservatives.

For one thing, broadly there are two distinct types of conservatives.

Group A consists of the old-fashioned conservative, who define conservatism this way:

minlessly anti-tax
anti-government except for military
libertarian in terms of civil liberties (don’t interfere in private lives)
isolationist - while they love a huge military, they hate using it
Generally respectful of diplomatic norms

Group B consists of the the New conservatives who are:

anti-tax
social conservatives
pro-big government (as long as its doing their bidding)
interventionist (ala neocons and their nationbuilding)
Military users (sees military solution as best solution)
Has no use for international diplomatic norms, does things its own way

While many would disagree with the basics, one thing most would agree on is the ONLY THING these two groups of self-defined conservatives agree on is “anti-tax.”

The Group A old-school conservatives sold their soul to the neoconservatives in group B for the sake of obtaining lower taxes.

They also completely underestimated the neo-conservative/social conservatives.

Their fanatical devotion to this goal blinded them to how different the other far more important ways the neo-conservatives in Group B

It’s taken 6 years, but finally their eyes are opening up to the huge mistake they made.

Bush has betrayed their beliefs as much as he’s betrayed the principals of his ideological opponents on the left here.

All too many are interpreting the signs of the growing struggle to define “what it means to be a conservative” as an “emminent fall” of Conservative power.

Once that battle is done, the likely winner the “social conservatives+neo-cons will claim the term, and the likely loser, the over-matched old-school conservatives, will probably make common cause with the left for a ONE TIME battle to defeat the usupers of their former power.

Together they will deliver a bitter defeat to the “social neo-conservatives.” That could happen as soon as Novemeber 2006, but I wouldn’t count on a complete victory.

While I do wish you were right, conservatives in general lose power completely. This is very unlikely to occur. They will always remain a big threat, and could return to power just as easily and quickly. If the Progressives/Liberals and Centrists fail to unite under a single banner and ensure all fall the rules following any victory in Nov. 2006.

One thing is clear, a decent Nov. 2006 victory for Democrats will see a rebirth of the “confrontational” “fighting” Democratic party we dream about.

Thanks mostly to Progressives and Liberals who realized that only by working with the Centrists can they get the positions of power and visibility in Gov’t. they need to push their agenda.

The NEW Democrats after 2006 will have NO PROBLEM Aggressively attacking the vicious Neo-con hate machine just as they have done for over a decade.

For the defining element of the New Dem. party will be a strong, and aggressive progressive/liberal wing, whose grassroots and net actions will be responsible for the key victories that returned Dems. to power.

Overnight, the formerly, meek “bi-partisan (read capitulating, enabling) Dem. style will go out the window. We won’t see any of the New Dems. after the Nove 2006 election hesitate to call worthless liars exactly that (as we did with John Kerry who refused to denounce the Swiftboaters as exactly that).

Such a victory will NOT come as a result of a “collapse of the conservatives.” It will come about only if Progressives/Liberals make the effort now to win with the Dems. and gain public visibility enabling us to help the public understand what we stand for without Democratic filters. 

This budding alliance will have to be maintained after 11/2, or the conservatives will return to power as quickly as they lost it. 

One thing is clear to assume the “fall of the social neo-conservative” is assured and all Progressives and Liberals have to do is stand back and watchis a huge mistake.

It will take a lot of effort to gain the initial win. This means Pro-Libs have to support Dems. in the short term IF WE WANT TO REMAKE the Party after the likely 2006 election.

Of course obviously this is only partially a response to what you said, I am NOT saying you said the opposite or even mentioned some of the stuff I did.

TruthTelR,

I believe you are correct here — “A vote against Lieberman was a vote against the Iraq War.”

The Iraq situation is pathetic and damaging not only to Bush’s polls, but even worse to the U.S. credibility. Called into question is our ability, motivation and certainly our wisdom.

A basic problem is that it is referred to as the “Iraq War” or the “War on Terror.” If you believe (as I do) that there is and has been for a long time, a group of religious fanatics seeking to return Islam to its former glory and power, then this is a far greater issue than Iraq and Afghanistan.

The best thing Lieberman has done lately is to speak out for a replacement of Donald Rumsfeld. His arrogance and grandiose military experiment is totally disgusting. In tandem with Bush’s misplaced loyalty it is tearing the country apart.

Prior administrations including Clinton’s where too timid in dealing with the attacks and also failed to unite other western nations who have had similar attacks by these extremists.

This is not a liberal conservative issue. This involves the rights of all individual nations and people who have been attempting to maintain a society free from religious domination.

How we got involved in this military briar patch is debatable, but that we are in it is undeniable. To continue on the same failed course is pure folly. The U.N. has at least as bad an image as the U.S. right now. Their resolutions are all bark and no bite.  This forum is perpetuated by self-impressed people exploiting the organization for their own ends at our expense. To consider sanctions on Iran after seeing how counter productive they were in Iraq is lunacy.  Any natural world calamities can be handled better by a coalition of caring nations more efficiently and for less cost.

Any ideas of governing the world by a joint venture or an individual nation is ridiculous. In fact I seriously doubt the ability of any form of government to work nationally any more. The speed of information like all things new from the discovery of fire to nuclear energy are two edged swords. From the first “ouch” in finding it burns skin as well as wood to the speed of dis/misinformation man has gained and lost to similar degrees.

No one seems competent to deal with the masses any better now than before.  Sweeping generalities won’t work. We are born, live and die as individuals—not by the day, not by the year, but only in the moment.
I find it interesting at this website just how quickly we fall into the same patterns which we are criticizing in others — Bush and other political figures, governments, or each other. How often WE are the ones who “know” what’s right for others.

(As Edith Ann would say, “And thath’s the truth.”)

Ummmmmm, what’s the difference between L and L? Both support a new war of destruction against the Iranian people.  Is there an American peace candidate? - Concerned Canadian.

accesslaw,

Is there a Hezbolllah, Hamas, al Qaeda peace candidate?

Where are the peace Mulahs? It takes both sides to make a lasting peace.

U.S. citizen also concerned

LATEST POLLS!!!!

Lieberman 45% Lamont 43%

They’re tied.

Of course the press decided with the last poll that Lieberman was the sure winner and is barely reporting this if at all.

AccesslawYou ask about a “peace candidate.” In a broad sense you may be right, but not in any specific sense, especially in terms of degree.

Supporting a military solution for the Iranian nuclear issue is NOT so black and white as you try to paint it.

Lieberman supports the “military as first option” in all conflicts.

He supports the military option whether or not it is viable.

Clearly even though the reasons for the Iraq war have been proved lies, even though the military effort in Iraq is proving to be a miserable failure, Lieberman still supports it. Lieberman, mindlessly supports military options as a first and best option.

Lamont merely by opposing the Iraq war shows a decidedly different take on using the “military option” so easily and freely. He’s opposed the Iraq war for a long time. He didn’t decide he was against it just before he decided to run in the primary.

It could best be said that while Lamont will support the “military option” if it becomes imparative, he is an old-school internationalist, who believes it should be the option of “last resort.” The military option should be used when all others fail.

This is in line with European and Canadian thinking.

Now of course if you are talking about pacifist “peace” activism. There is no movement for that in the USA, and thank goodness. That kind of pacifism is self-destructive when used to deal with those who do not believe in it.

whattheheck? sure there are bigots in any religion, and haven’t they run Israel for 58 years? decampe? you view CNN as a benchmark of truth?

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/?articleid=9608

August 28, 2006
Bigotry and Ignorance of Islam
by Charley Reese

President George Bush’s ignorance of the Middle East and its people is well-known. So also is his habit of parroting words and sentences given to him by other people. He hit a new low when he referred to “Islamic fascists.”

No two more opposite concepts are to be found. Fascism glorifies the nation-state; Islam is transnational. Fascism demands slavish devotion to a national leader; Muslims are far too independent-minded to be slavish followers of anybody. Virtually all the people Saddam Hussein murdered were people trying to overthrow him. Fascism is militaristic. Islam is not.

Mr. Bush, who has dubbed himself the “war president,” has made a pathetic and absurd effort to picture himself as Winston Churchill facing off against evil. He is no Churchill. Most of the enemies he imagines, he has created himself.

The West faces no threat from Islam. Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, but it really is a religion of peace. More importantly, it is a religion that concentrates on individual salvation. There is no Muslim pope, no College of Cardinals, no bishops, no priesthood. Any five Muslims anywhere in the world can start their own mosque. Imams are teachers and, like Protestant preachers or Jewish rabbis, can be fired by their congregation. The Shiite version is slightly more organized.

A fatwa is a statement issued by an imam, usually explanatory. It is similar to statements issued by the pope, with this important difference: No Muslim is bound by any fatwa. Muslims are free to pay attention to it or to ignore it.

Islam, like Christianity, is a universal religion that ignores nationality, race or color. To become a Muslim, one must profess belief in one God, acknowledge Muhammad as his prophet, recognize the Quran as the word of God, pray five times a day, provide for the poor and, if possible, make a trip to Mecca once in your lifetime. The God Muslims worship is the same God Christians and Jews worship.

To dispose of some of the slanderous misstatements being floated about, Islam forbids forced conversions. People would do well to read some history rather than rely on ignorant and malicious radio and TV talk-show hosts. The oldest Christian communities in the world are all in Muslim countries. There have always been Christian and Jewish communities in the Muslim world. Muslims are commanded to treat Christians and Jews as they would treat themselves. They revere Jesus as a prophet and highly respect the Virgin Mary. The disputes you see in the modern Middle East are not religious; they are all about secular matters, principally Israeli occupation of Arab lands.

The Arabs see Israel as the last European colonialist state imposed on them by the European powers. That’s true, in fact.

Hamas and Islamic Jihad are concerned only with ending Israeli occupation of Palestine. Hezbollah is concerned with ending Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Al-Qaeda wants to overthrow the Persian Gulf governments and is at war with us because we are the principal backers and supporters of those governments. Al-Qaeda alone is most un-Islamic and has been so labeled by a majority of Muslims. It is a small group.

If you wish to understand Islam, turn off your TV and go to the library. Introduce yourself to some of America’s 6 million Muslims. You’ll find them to be very decent and patriotic people. There are some fanatics among Muslims, just as there are among Jews and Christians. Most of the New England states were originally populated by people fleeing Puritan rule in Massachusetts.

The way to combat the fanatics is to extend the hand of friendship to ordinary Muslims and to protest the slander and libel of Muslims and Islam, just as you should protest the slander and libel of Jews and other groups. Bigotry should have no place in our public dialogue, regardless of the target.

It’s obvious that President Bush will never understand the world into which he was born, but most Americans have more open minds – except, of course, those who prefer to click their heels and salute when their Fuehrer of choice speaks.

Appreciate the well-thought out clarifications by johnnyincentx and others.

The Reese article is also on target. So many people who buy into the War Party’s racism have no contact with Muslims at all. The consequence are trumped up charges born of paranoia, as we saw with the young men from Dearborn buying phones (charges subsequently dropped.)

The mantle of fear depends on a state of ignorance. If people realized there is no problem with Islam, just radicalism within Islam, we’d begin to solve the problems we have in the region. That radicalism feeds off of US support for Israel and the Gulf states (if anyone actually listened for the reasons Osama gave for hating us.)

There is some paranoia on the other side of the cultural and religious divide, but who could blame them? They have something we crave--oil. There’s been systematic economic exploitation of the region by Western powers. And if we look at what the Israelis have done to Lebanon, largely with American weapons, wouldn’t you be a little scared of getting Depleted Uranium dropped on your country? (And remember Lebanon is half Christian--which in itself proves that the Clash of Civilizations isn’t about religion, although Shia areas were hit hardest by Israel.)

The militaristic approach is highly flawed at best. Educated and informed voters will invariably seek out more logical solutions to the problems we face with the Middle East. While the victor in the Senate race may be antiwar, unfort he will also be extremely sympathetic to the Israeli side, which will continue to slant our military and fiscal support towards that country. The absence of a less biased approach to our foreign policy in the region will ferment Islam militancy as we are caught supporting Israel and so-called “moderate” states who repress their populations.

TruthTelr

You kind of hint at something I’ve suspected for a long tim. Muslims in general know very little about how dramatically “Americans” vary from place to place.

In particular Connecticut is right next to and partly composes the NY Metropolitan area.

Today in an article about a Jewish Baseball Player the NY Times referred to NYC as : the New York area, a capital of Jewish culture, home to nearly two million Jews,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/26/nyregion/26green.html?ex=1156910400&e en=ccea9d48117823ba&ei=5070

Read it while you can, I’m sure the article will be duely censored in no time, because any reference to Jewish strength anywhere in this nation is always considered inherently anti-semetic.

I’d love to hear how you expect any candidate from Connecticut would get elected having anything but a strong pro-Israel position?

Lamont ironically is the best thing for Israel. For unlike Lieberman, who often behaves like the Senator from Israel when it comes to Middle East policy, Lamont will be able to pro-Israeli without being obviously blinded by a strong religious belief.  I say obviously, because his history of statements reflect his very strong orthodox beliefs.

Lieberman is the only Jewish senator of the 13-14 in the Senate who doesn’t seem to factor in “what’s good for the USA” when he decided “what’s good for Israel.”

His support of the war at any cost is clearly in Israel’s best interest, not the USAs.

Lieberman, mindlessly repeats the jingoistic mantras of the far right of Israeli politics, and uses his position to promote the extreme right wing position in Israeli politics in our Senate.

Lamont would be a welcome change. Yes he’d still be a strong supporter of Israel, but he would not be blinded by the religious fervor that binds Lieberman slavishly to the extreme religious parties of Israel and their policies.

Lamont in the Senate would use his position to ensure Israel gets “Good, thoughtful” council on its conflict in the MidEast.

It’s clear if the MidEast problem is to be resolved, the USA must return to the postion of nuetral broker (albeit with strong Israeli sympathies).

Lamont would be a step in that direction.

Lieberman keeps the USA’s hands tied up and bound to the policies of the most extreme right wing elements of Israeli politics. Just getting free from the likes of Netanyahu is a good enough reason to be done with Lieberman.

johnnyincentx, accesslaw & TruthTelR,

“Clearly even though the reasons for the Iraq war have been proved lies, even though the military effort in Iraq is proving to be a miserable failure, Lieberman still supports it.”

--------------------
If you remember the reasons given after 9/11 were multiple and this was expected to be a long conflict. IMO the main reason anything was done was due to the 9/11 attacks themselves — prior to that no politician dared to do much more than offer a token response or even as little as a bit of verbal noise. The media was allowed to define the reasons to a couple of handy sound bites while the White House remained mute for months.

When you go to war a clear case should be made, a congressional declaration should be made and the whole country should be involved. After Korea, Vietnam and assorted other “executive ordered” military action you would think congress would demand following the constitution once in a while.

“The West faces no threat from Islam. Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, but it really is a religion of peace.”

I guess they just have a different way of expressing their “peaceful” wishes.

Had I been president over the course of these events (say since Nixon/Ford) — Lebanon Marine barracks, U.S.S. Cole, an assortment of embassy attacks and plane highjackings — I would have begun hitting back at these guys beginning with the Iran Hostage Crisis and never let any of these attacks go unanswered. Except for Libya’s attack on our jets, non of these received sufficient response.

Not to respond in kind is seen as weakness by a people who have made killing a favorite sport for centuries.

-----------------
The Charlie Reese article:

“The West faces no threat from Islam. Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, but it really is a religion of peace.”

NEWS FLASH!
Those weren’t Seventh Day Adventists lopping heads on the videos. Remember Daniel Pearl? Remember the U.S. and other contractors? Remember the Ayatollah Khomeini?  Those were radical, fanatical Muslims.

----------------------

“The Reese article is also on target. So many people who buy into the War Party’s racism have no contact with Muslims at all. )”

Baloney! I live three houses away from a Muslim family. The radical few are all it takes to be a major threat to them also. They have no problem killing other Muslims and do it regularly with random suicide bombings.

------------------

“The way to combat the fanatics is to extend the hand of friendship to ordinary Muslims and to protest the slander and libel of Muslims and Islam, just as you should protest the slander and libel of Jews and other groups. Bigotry should have no place in our public dialogue, regardless of the target.”
I seem to remember a few people from the U.S. who went over there about a year ago with the same solution — remember?

You and Charlie are not in the real world. If a wacky Muslim wearing his bomb wardrobe comes by you’re free to call the al Qaeda Whisperer.  I’d prefer a .45 at least.

One rather lengthly, polite, fact-filled, point-by-point reply to an early whattheheck post was pulled along with the whattheheck post that prompted it. I wonder why? It is a shame that input from those who do not live within the news/infotainment/propaganda/gov-steno-pool/propaganda bubble that is north american media is deleted. The post in question contained no personal attacks or foul language, but challenged assertions that have become factoids only because they get repeated unchallenged.

but i digress:

whattheheck continues to chide those of us who refuse to be more afraid of Islamofundies than we are of christofundies. You see, both are philosophies of exclusion and conquest and forced-conversion if needs be; I am right and you are wrong - my gawd’s bigger than your gawd - you had better convert or die and suffer eternal damnation in some hell. On the face of it, these faiths seem to worship a satanic diety and wish death and destruction upon the other. Fear. Fear. Fear. Them. Them. Them. Fear. Fear. Fear.

I can understand why americans are so very afraid, that is what the power elite that control your media and their selected gov lackies need you to be in order to rob the u.s. treasury and make you surrender your precious civil liberties in the process. Americans fail to see the decades-old policies of death and destruction in the mid-East, Iran, Iraq, Central America, South America and elsewhere - and by default - their participation in it as a citizen of a representative democracy.

You are subconsciously aware of your guilt and you are afraid en mass. You willingly spend and waste billion$ and billion$ over decades for a safety that cannot be purchased with weapons, while your children are not educated, your infrastructure falls apart, you cannot afford healthcare, and you buy junk you don’t need from economies that don’t protect their workforces, environments or communities either, and you lay down while the richest among you pay less than their fair share. Your future is dim. Your greatness belittled.

Quit being afraid, stand up and see that the real enemy is within. You are a victim of the greatest heist ever committed in the name of a legitimate government that a criminal coup de tat has ever pulled off .

hourglass / now in tokyo

hourglass,

Through the wonders of technology I am now able to be psychoanalyzed, get a lesson in comparative religions, an assessment of the emotional condition of the American masses, discover that I can’t get health care, an evaluation of decades of U.S. policies, AND learn that my children have had no education.

Unfortunately I know little of your qualifiicatiions.

Methinks hourglass protests to much to be taken seriously. Since you obviously believe everything you read it is tempting to do send some really outrageous reply, but I’ll resist.

However, if you are visiting Japan, I suggest you watch out for what appear to right wing extremists who recently burned the house of a former leader of the Liberal Democratic Party. They may not be kind to a big nose.

If you are a citizen of Japan might I remind you that your economy has left much to be desired for more than ten years now.

what the heck? whattheheck, you haven’t really challenged my assertions so that we may debate - you challenge me ...

“Through wonders of technology” - huh? No, my friend, i must assume that you have some years of catching up to do before you accumulate enough real-world exerience to see through my eyes.

My “qualifications”? - Have you never watched your Sunday morning pundit-fests? And, oh, hey, have scott peterson, the runaway bride, arruba, john mark karr, that ‘rocky’ 8-more-years operative, the katrina anniversary, et al kept you infotained?

“Protests too much”? Naw, the lack of massive popular protest movements, over a number of issues, reflects the collective submissiveness and cowardice of the American population. When this venue (internet) of free and open conversation is given over to corp/gov control, all we’ll have left are heavily monitored free speech zones. I saw combat to ensure a free speech zone from sea to shining sea - that war was a schoolboy fairytale and federal lie of course, too. “Land of the free and home of the brave” are cute lyrics, though.

“Since you obviously believe everything you read” ? This tact doesn’t make any sense at all. If I believed everything I read or heard coming from the US:

Mission accomplished/mushroom clouds/last throes of the insurgency/fighting ‘them’ there so we don’t have to fight ‘them’ here/schools are painted and open/Afghanistan is now a democracy/Iran is breaking the rules NNPT/Pakistan, a non-signer to NNPT is our friend/corporate welfare makes us strong/this economy is strong/ geeze, I can’t go on…

“I suggest you watch out for” - whattheheck, sorry, I just cannot be afraid like you suggest, but thanks for your concern about my nose.

“might i remind you that your econ” - well, that is true enough, it’s taken far too long (actually closer to 15 years) to settle the debt created by a gov-encouraged real estate bubble in japan. Even with slashing of budgets, restructuring, and the hollowing out of the mfg sector, society has held together pretty much. while there is some homelessness here too, i can’t remember one instance of being accosted by a styrofoam cup. Maybe after the Federal Reserve Banking System reneges on it’s bond issues. Like bushco said, ‘it’s only paper’.

whattheheck, the only things that have kept the american economy afloat are 1) financial service market growth - it doesn’t produce anything except wealth for the creators, call it creative bean counting 2) nearly every homeowner eating equity to maintain a lifestyle and 3) war - congress writing checks against my grandkids future, vast amounts of unaccounted-for public money lost/stolen to poison the political well and maintain power.

Now, Lamont doesn’t represent an ‘anti-war’ stance, but an ‘anti-stupid-senseless-war’ stance. Whereas, Lieberman represents the status quo. Cut and run - is what the entire current leadership and pundit class did when they had the chance to exemplify their boisterous rhetoric. Stay the course - is no military tactic that I can recall, but it is a political one - let the Dems have the mess in 2008. (A prediction/not fact here) As the years of struggle to correct the systematic destruction of governance this criminal cabal has put upon us drag on, Jeb Bush will be called upon in 2012 to ‘save us’ again. They will have unlimited finances and control the message.

It’s all smoke and mirrors and soundbites, whattheheck. Now, care to debate anything of substance?

BTW, you got a house on the market by any chance?

hourglass

hourglass,

You apparently have not read many of my postings on the topics you touch on here.

I view the economy very much as you present it, but I don’t hang around much with people stupid enough to be directly affected by the housing bubble or any other such hazards. Neither do my sons.

My house has been paid for for more than 30 years. I borrowed $1,000 from my father in 1966 to start my business and the mortgage is the only other loan i have ever had.  It is my conservative view that if you don’t have the cash — don’t buy.

The rich have always controlled economies worldwide and always will. This was even true under the Soviet style of communism for most of the 70 year experiment. Money and power are Siamese twins joined at the pockets.

As for the war I have made my beliefs quite clear, but here goes once again. I believe there is and has been an extensive series of attacks on the U.S. for at least 30 years. I disbelieve all this conspiracy stuff surrounding 9/11.

I don’t trust internet sources even as much as most others — TV, newspaper, radio, whatever. Anything on the internet can be faked — words, identities, photos — or modified and will then remain there to as “information” to be quoted forever.

As for debating anything “of substance” we would not even agree on what is substantive and it makes no difference to the outcome anyway.

By the way the big nose reference is to a name a friend of mine stationed on Okinawa many years ago told me they called Americans.

Time to get out in the streets and raise hell or we are going to live in a world shaped by nimnos like what the heck.

\\Contribute a few dollars to the world can’t wait website to defeat the Bushite fascists.  Get out in the street and raise hell.

http://www.worldcantwait.org/

Spinoza,

Thank you for your reply. I may need to revise my assessment to Hourglass when I said, “As for debating anything “of substance” we would not even agree on what is substantive and it makes no difference to the outcome anyway.”

If you see what I’ve stated so far as cause for alarm, watch out. Here is my coat of arms motto —

Grym när inflammerad (Vicious when riled)

WTH :-)

whattheheck,

That your middle-class father had the wherewithal to provide a helping hand to a child’s future is what labor and social reforms were all about. Sadly, this era is gone for the most part, through initiatives launched by monied planners and handlers of an Actor-in-Chief back in the 70s.

There are many who benefitted from the former era who somehow believe they got their upper-middle/middle class standard of living from ‘the sweat’ of their own ‘brow’. A half-true notion that blinds them of the current efforts to dismantle the middle class so evident all around them, if they only opened their eyes. They tenaciously harbour illusions of rising to, deserving of and becoming ‘one of them’, the ruling class, and these illusions make them victim to the jingoism of today.

i suppose ‘what is substantive’ could be argued as subjective, however, ‘makes no difference to the outcome anyway’ in the same sentence gives me pause. You don’t seem to be able to follow events and connect the dots. You believe ‘government’ has your best interests at heart. In other words, you believe in fairy tales, and your belief system will not shaken, awakened, until you and yours are directly affected. I hope this happens sooner, rather than later, as this democracy needs all hands on deck, right now.

Regarding another of your ilk’s broad brushes: I don’t know what happened on 9/11 and neither do you - because it was never really investigated. Have you read the Commission’s report? Are key elements even addressed? Why were restrictions placed on areas of investigation? Forensic evidence was removed and destroyed - from a crime scene that produced the first modern era buildings in history to fall from fire - 3 of them the same day. One was not hit by any plane. Again, I don’t know what happened, but 18 guys who couldn’t fly and 6 box-cutters defeating decades of professionalism and billions in investment in security, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and, above all, keeping NORAD at bay for hours - well, that is one heck of a conspiracy theory. Kind of reminds of the ‘magic bullet’ theory another ‘commission’ came up with to calm a troubled and nervous public.

I do know what has happend since 9/11:
Patriot Act
Clean Air
No Child Left Behind
Help America Vote
Bankruptcy Bill
Internet Neutrality
Flag Desecration

Just read the titles of these things and come to the light my fellow Americans.

This great democracy, a living experiment and former beacon to the world, now has a CEO-type Commander-in-Chief governing as a living constitution of it’s own. You, as of now, have surrendered you rights to be safer - you are not safer.

The media, that you believe in, is chided as propagandists influenced by terrorists when a simple review of recorded statements made by this admin., politicians and talking heads checked against facts reveals that the liars and propagandists are in control. The media does nothing to inform us of facts. Instead, these partners in the new world order, these aiders and abettors of this coup de tat repeat for us:

axis of evil
with us or against us
mushroom clouds
freedom on the march
stay the course
cut and run
islamofascists (an oxymoron by the way)
war against Christmas
family values

I don’t know that anything I could say would shake you out of your slumber. Americans need to be involved in their democracy. Admitting that we need each other is the first step. Admitting that a transformation from rule of law to rule by fiat is not American is the next. Because while we bash each other in the trenches of disinformation, the country is lost without a punch being thrown at the usurpers.

By the way, my family motto: Beati Pacifici

With this I’ll close, whattheheck, I have no desire or sand for willfully picayne arguements. I wish you the best, may you and yours be well and happy.

hourglass

Hourglass,

Take a look at some of your comments and assumptions.

• That your middle-class father had the wherewithal to provide a helping hand to a child’s future is what labor and social reforms were all about.

My father’s father was an immigrant coal miner — when he died my grandmother got a one-time $50 payment to help bury him. Screw social reform! It is what is responsible for dismemberment of black families, the increase in unwed mothers, increased drug usage and a lack of incentive to get an education.

• ...blinds them of the current efforts to dismantle the middle class

Most people I know have been very aware of the evaporation of the middle class. We have been downsized, right sized and globalized right out of the workforce. Now that everyone who had years of experience has been purged, the call is for more work visas to fill white collar jobs. (The ones the Hispanic illegals already have the ones we “don’t want.”)

The unions, like congress ignored the trend and now the consumer has wonderful prices on pure crap! There is reason some boats are called JUNK. To add to the insult lower real income makes people captive customers to “Always Low Prices.”

• You believe ‘government’ has your best interests at heart.

Just because I don’t see 9/11 as some diabolical masterwork does not mean I believe anyone has my interest at heart other than me. I ran my own business, made my own retirement investments (since allowed in 1983), have fought city hall, insurance companies and written to congressmen for four decades.

• Regarding another of your ilk’s broad brushes:

If this is NOT a broad brush comment, what is? So who are YOU to decide what my “ilk” is?

• I don’t know what happened on 9/11 and neither do you -

We can agree on the above, but for someone making that statement take a look at what you claim to “know.”

“Forensic evidence was removed and destroyed - from a crime scene that produced the first modern era buildings in history to fall from fire - 3 of them the same day. One was not hit by any plane. Again, I don’t know what happened, but 18 guys who couldn’t fly and 6 box-cutters defeating decades of professionalism and billions in investment in security, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and, above all, keeping NORAD at bay for hours - well, that is one heck of a conspiracy theory. Kind of reminds of the ‘magic bullet’ theory another ‘commission’ came up with to calm a troubled and nervous public.”

We still can’t find agreement on the substance of Pearl Harbor. We never will on Kennedy’s death and nobody in his right mind would believe a report by a group essentially investigating ITSELF.

• The media, that you believe in,

You assume I believe… why? Because I disbelieve in some of the things you apparently accept?

• This great democracy, a living experiment and former beacon to the world, now has a CEO-type Commander-in-Chief

Agreed — also a Vice President, Secretary of Defense and assorted others.

• Americans need to be involved in their democracy.

• ...the country is lost without a punch being thrown at the usurpers.

SO? What how you propose to punch?

Are you with those in the “Impeach Bush” bunch? Next in line is… the VP!  Big improvement? 

Just what do you think are the realistic chances of electing anyone other than the pick of the two parties? I voted for John B. Anderson and Ross Perot and after eight years of Clinton don’t expect me to go that route ever again.

We can ONLY affect change close to home. I do not believe there is any form of government capable of dealing with life today. There is no time for democracy to function in a world of instant communication with no reliable way to sort it in a timely fashion.

The financial juggling is an international cooperative venture based on the realities of money and power. They need no military conspiracy to achieve their mutual aims — it flows naturally and the internet is the crowning advantage needed to accomplish the task.

THE SEVEN RULES OF NATIONALISM

1. If an area was ours for 500 years and yours for 50 years, it should belong to us - you are merely occupiers.

2. If an area was yours for 500 years and ours for 50 years, it should belong to us - borders must not be changed.

3. If an area belonged to us 500 years ago but never since then, it should belong to us - it is the Cradle of our Nation.

4. If a majority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must enjoy the right of self-determination.

5. If a minority of our people live there, it must belong to us - they must be protected against your oppression.

6. All the above rules apply to us but not to you.

7. Our dream of greatness is Historical Necessity, yours is Fascism.

(unknown author)

re: Seven Rules (author unknown)

He’s probably unknown because while he was trying to reason with the factions vying for the disputed area he was caught in a crossfire.

In the real world, whether we like it or not, the spoils “belong” to the victor. (for as long as he can hold them)

The League of Nations, The United Nations, Human Rights Watch, The Geneva Conventions, The International Court are ONLY as effective as their enforcement capability.

UNIFIL-was present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978.  Is there any reason to think the current bunch will do a better job? Do they even have ammo in their weapons?

>>>UNIFIL-was present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978.  Is there any reason to think the current bunch will do a better job? Do they even have ammo in their weapons? <<<

Dear Mr. LESS THEN BRIGHT, The purpose of UNFIL was to monitor the border and report on activity.  They were not there to fight anyone.

They did that, Israel was constantly violating the border. Israel is still violating the border.  The UN will not fire on anyone and they have no mandate to do so.  Fascists like you who are warmongering lowlifes ought to read the papers from time to time and find out what is going on in the world.

Spin-rosey,

How typical of the responses at this site, rather than face up to reality simply resort to name calling. Anyone who doesn’t see it your way, “must be a fascist.” I guess there is something wrong with your reasoning ability as well as a lack of coping with life as it presents itself.

If things aren’t the way you wish, you just find someone else to blame.
You must read past the funny papers to be informed.