madmark.myfastforum.org

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

I've been busy debating with Democratic Party political operatives on opednews and of course they are furious at the idea of an election boycott. But in the process of responding to their name-calling and attacks, I've been learning things.

The most important thing I've just learned was when I was telling people (I'm arguing with the political operatives, but the reason I do it is so that others reading will see them for what they are and learn from what I write -- I know I can never convince paid operatives) why Obama is likely to concede to McCain the same way that Gore and Kerry conceded to Bush.

And the explanation is so simple I don't know why I didn't see it clearly before. Since they support the same pro-war and pro-corporate agenda, when the Democrat concedes to the Republican "for the good of the country," he means "for the good of the Democratic Party," since the Democratic Party can then continue to support the same pro-war, pro-corporate agenda, and continue to blame the Republicans for it.

That's why neither Gore nor Kerry have ever repudiated their words or expressed any regret about conceding to Bush for what they said was "the good of the country." What they did was for the good of the Democratic Party because they were able to support their pro-war, pro-corporate agenda while continuing to blame it on the Republicans the whole time. It is very unlikely that Obama will do anything different.

I also found a marvellous article about Fidel Castro and learned that Cuba also had a successful election boycott:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/...ol-by-John-Little-080911-253.html

When I started advocating an election boycott, I didn't know that there had ever been any successful election boycotts. It was much later that I learned about the successful election boycott that led to the end of the Apartheid regime in South Africa, and now I've learned that there was a successful election boycott in Cuba that led to Fidel Castro overthrowing the Batista regime. For all I know, there may have been other successful election boycotts. It is apparently not something that I'm likely to come across in my ordinary reading, and it certainly isn't taught in school.

In case anyone is interested in my running disputes with Democratic operatives, there are some in the comments in the following threads:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/...by-Bernie-Sanders-080909-833.html

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9192

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9314

http://www.opednews.com/articles/...Greg-Purcell-Word-080913-194.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/...nt-by-abuelitaromo-080911-10.html

So while it may seem like I'm just wasting my time, and there are times when it seems that way to me, I keep learning things, seeing things more clearly, finding better ways to explain things, and perhaps even occasionally convincing somebody, even if they don't want to say so publicly.

It will probably still take a miracle or ten to pull off a successful election boycott in just seven weeks from now, but who knows? It will be interesting to see if there's any fallout from the Lehman Brothers collapse tomorrow. What if the United States started a war with Russia and then our stock market collapsed and the warmongers didn't have the money to pay for it? I guess some people would still vote, but probably a lot fewer.

paulmb · Guest

Top business warmongers Rice and Co have already decided about war with Russia and god know who else it seems.Talk about"create the demand to meet the supply"instead of vice versa of course and in this case creating fear to cause the cash flow!.Somehow I have a feeling these deals are not going to be effected after the voting in November!.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,573307,00.html

mke · Facilitator Joined: 25 Apr 2008 Posts: 27

The idea of war with Russia stems from the old idea that war is good for business. Bushco is madly trying to get another war going, anywhere, in order to shore up our rapidly failing economy. The first choice though, still is Iran. ~The weapon of mass destruction is the same that Iraq held. Not
requiring the U.S. dollar as payment for oil~

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

War may have been good for the economy at one time.

That was back when it produced jobs for Americans and there was oversight on government spending.

Nowadays at least a quarter of the defense budget has no oversight whatsoever and cannot be accounted for, and jobs are being created in China, not here.

The idea of privatization was supposedly to reduce costs through competition, but with no-bid cost-plus contracts, there is no competitive bidding and costs have gone through the ceiling.

War is good for some businesses, namely Halliburton and others with connections to the administration, but it is devastating to the U.S. economy as a whole.

The dollar seems likely to crash. The only way the U.S. can get anyone to accept dollars any more is through military force. It isn't a stable currency. It's like buying stock in Lehman Brothers.