Viva Democracy!


By DIA, Section News
Posted on Mon Jul 17, 2006 at 01:22:30 PM EST

Here is an article well worth reading. In Mexico they take their democracy a lot more seriously than we do here. Living in a city where voter fraud is "accepted" as "the way its always been", its rather refreshing to see the Mexican voters fight for what is theirs. And Mexican's know a thing or two about corrupt government officials. Albany's corrupt machine hacks wouldn't impress them one bit.

Perhaps their media investigates reports of voter fraud as well? Lucky them.

< NY -20 The Latest Numbers | The Blanks >

Menu

+ create account
+ faq
+ search

Login

Make a new account

Username:
Password:

Related Links

+ is an article well worth reading.
+ Also by DIA
Display: Sort:
Viva Democracy! | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Globalization, Part II (none / 0) (#1)
by Citizen McLain on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 04:27:14 AM EST
All due respect, Mexico does not need a socialist president.  It needs a globalist.

In the United States, we had a president who was able to soundly articulate a vision that encompassed free trade, globalization and the preparation of the work force for the future.  Pissed off a lot of special interest groups; he also contributed to the elimination of the budget deficit, currently he raises money for varoius good causes.  His name: Bill Clinton.

That's what you need in Mexico...in some form or another, minus the sexual peccadillos...that's what you need here.  The current crop of Democrats, except maybe his wife or Mark Warner, ain't gonna cut it.

what they need (none / 0) (#2)
by DIA on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 05:33:06 AM EST
are fair and accurate elections.  Same thing we need in this country.

I can't say i'm surprised that a Republican is touting Hillary Clinton.   Republicans sure do like their corporations to succeed regardless of what happens to the workers.  

At Ken Lay's funeral the preacher compared him to MLK JR and Jesus.   Only in George W Bush's  America.

[ Parent ]

Nothing Wrong with Corporations..... (none / 0) (#3)
by Citizen McLain on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 07:42:54 AM EST
...or Democrats who promote free trade.

As you also like to point out when referring disparagingly about Republicans, there is nothing wrong with a Democratic president who promotes free trade, wants to strengthen education and job re-training, who cuts the deficit and actually helps create a budget surplus.  There is a reason he was re-elected in 1996.

Are you suggesting the Bill and Hillary Clinton are so pro-corporations that they are anti-labor?

Another thing about Ms. Clinton: I like the fact that she has not apologized for her vote on Iraq.  

Unlike many of the Senators of both parties who voted in that debate, she had a unique perspective on what was going on, what Iraq was doing, how Iraq was flouting the U.N., abusing the oil for food program, etc.  She was there when Clinton ordered the airstrikes on al qaeda.  I don't think it's necessary for a Democrat to win the nomination for president by backtracking from a vote that was made in good faith.  (My wife almost had a heart attack when I said this to her.)  I also like that she is not hemming, hawing or equivocating on Israel in its legitimate campaign against Hamas and Hezbollah.

I know whom I am likely to support for the GOP in 2008, but as a good citizen, I always like to cheer on the nominees of the other party whose administration I could support if my candidate lost.  American could do worse than Mrs. Clinton or Mark Warner in 2009.

[ Parent ]

apologize? (none / 0) (#4)
by DIA on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 09:43:19 AM EST
its not about apologizing for what you did in the past.  Its about realizing that you made a really bad decision and trying to change course.  I don't want George Bush and all the republican leaders to apologize to me either.  I want them to stop fucking up this country and the world.  did you see everyone laugh at Bush when Bush told putin that Russia should be more like Iraq?   The world is laughing (while crying) about the leadership of America.   Bush's policy on Iraq was summed up perfectly in his response to Putin, "you just wait".   that appears to be hillary's stance, too.   How long are you people willing to wait?   Waiting isn't a policy.  

like i said.  It does not suprise me that republicans like Hillary.  It does not surprise me that you think what israel is doing is legitimate.  Hillary's got your back on all the issues.  She's ok with bombing civilians in Iraq so why wouldn't she mind bombing kids in Lebanon?   And she'll bomb them in Iran as well.  you just wait.

I'd like to cheer on republicans too if they would be honest and do what they promised.  chuck hagel is your only hope on that front.  Too bad he doesn't have a shot in hell to win the nomination of today's republican party.  

[ Parent ]

It is Legitimate (none / 0) (#5)
by Citizen McLain on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:36:02 AM EST
What Israel is doing to Hezbollah (and Hamas for that matter) is legitimate.  They are doing what Lebanon cannot...or will not...I think it is cannot.

Israel's campaign against Hezbollah, if successful, may be one of the only chances we have at avoiding a conflagration facilitated by Iran.

For a country whose civilians have been terrorized and brutalized by Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, among others, I think that Israel has over time shown enormous restraint.  Sometimes, and now is one of those times, they are willing even to risk taking the role of the bad guy in the Middle East, so the USA and the Europeans don't have to fight these battles.  It is disgusting to see Kofi Annan, Vladimir Putin, Jacque Chirac putting Hezbollah on the same moral platform as Israel with their call for a ceasefire.  

Just remember who started this assault - Hezbollah. Not Lebanon, not the USA, not Israel...Hezbollah.

I'd rather have a Democrat like Hillary Clinton in the White House, one who I can count on to have my back in a crisis.

[ Parent ]

collateral damage (none / 0) (#8)
by DIA on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:30:38 AM EST
its interesting to me how easy it is for people to accept the idea of collateral damage when they think they are right.

I admit i'm not an expert on all of the issues involving all of the parties in this latest war.  I guess this latest war is making you feel safer.  Just as iraq is making us safer according to Bush.  War sure seems to be the road to peace and safety these days.  I'm not much of a historian.  Perhaps we should look back and see if this approach has been proven to be successful in the past.

 

[ Parent ]

Collateral Damage? (none / 0) (#9)
by Citizen McLain on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:43:29 AM EST
I am not very comfortable with the idea of collateral damage.  Not at all, and especially not in a preventive war where we were not provoked.

I have no bloodlust.

We have seen from history how well the ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel has worked.  We have seen how well: in Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon, how difficult it is to promote good government when you have these quasi-military units terrorizing their domestic and political enemies.

However, whether it is neoconservatism, progressive realism, Wilsonian idealism, or geopolitical realism, the primary purpose of any nation's foreign policy is to preserve and protect the national security of that nation.  

[ Parent ]

From Today's Washington Post (none / 0) (#6)
by Citizen McLain on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 10:41:10 AM EST
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701310.html

[ Parent ]
Hagel and Constructive Diplomacy (none / 0) (#7)
by Citizen McLain on Tue Jul 18, 2006 at 11:22:41 AM EST
http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219451&Mon th=7&Year=2006

Now, you mention Senator Hagel. This is press statement from last week, related to the events in Lebanon.

Despite the fact that he is probably as skeptical as anyone about Syria and Iran, Hagel also believes in constructive engagement.  You talk to your enemies; you do not just isolate them diplomatically.  You do not negotiate when a gun is being put to your head, but you talk (hopefully not while chewing or cussing).  Same with Cuba (which is not really much of an enemy anymore and is barely a nuisance).

Sending Rice to the area might be a good idea, but sending a special envoy might be better.

Regarding 2008, I would not rule anyone out.  I have a few Republicans whom I would like to see get the nomination, but if we just get some crass-opportunist, water-boy for the president (e.g., Frist or Allen), then forget it.  Game over.

[ Parent ]

i read the wapo editorial (none / 0) (#10)
by DIA on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 05:58:18 AM EST
Since then I've read this piece.

I recommend you read it if you want to understand my position better.  
Most of us critical thinkers should know that we don't always get all the news in the major US papers.  Or that we get straight up lies that help support the rush to war.  (on an ironic side note, i love how all these really dumb people are accusing the Times of treason (see today's times union letters) and yet the Times had as big a hand as anyone in ginning up fake reasons for the iraq war that these same really dumb people consider AWESOME!)
Like i said yesterday, I don't understand how easily people can accept the bombing of someone else's children.   slippery slope.  I don't care if the WaPo tells me its the right thing to do.   And I can guarantee that killing another persons child will never get you peace of any kind.   Very few people are good enough to have their innocent children slaughtered and not swear revenge.  I certainly wouldn't want to have to face that challenge because i dont' think i'm up to it.


NYT and Treason (none / 0) (#11)
by Citizen McLain on Wed Jul 19, 2006 at 08:33:09 AM EST
You are referring to this letter I assume: http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=500846&category=LETTER&BCCode=&newsda te=7/19/2006

There are people out there who cannot hold two conflicting ideas in their head at once, or that there is a paradox of living in a free society, and that is we risk some of our security at home to preserve the level of freedom that we have.

The most despicable argument I've heard from the government, any government, is that by even suggesting that there may be differences in opinion among Americans in a time of war undercuts us with our enemy.  The fact that this idea has legs demonstrates to me that we are sacrificing too much of our soul in this war.

[ Parent ]

Viva Democracy! | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:
create account | faq | search