George Bush in lipstick?

10 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2008-10-05 12:31

Is she? I didn’t see the Palin/Biden debate but from what I’ve read about her, it’s looking scary…

I doubted Obama would get in, but at least McCain would’ve been better than GW. Now, I’m getting nervous. Remember how often Reagan took naps... in the middle of meetings?

Thought this was funny, though:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/3/43222/8057/718/618653

~~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Sun, 2008-10-05 14:53

TheShyAssassin

Not even the yanks could be dumb enough to do it again. Surely....?

Sun, 2008-10-05 16:43

Kropotkin38

Voting in the worst of politicians is not a proclivity determined by nationality. Even the politicians who lose are no more than mendacious scum, so why should you expect more from the ones that win? I fail to see the importance of this American beauty contest. It'll soon be "meet the new boss same as the old boss" and no Democrat - I include Roosevelt and Kennedy - was ever worth a grain of the hope of the progressive world. Obama would prove no different.

Sun, 2008-10-05 17:05

2Lou

Possibly – but I don’t see the point of throwing up hands and simply dismissing it all as hopeless. People have got to work with the systems that are in place whilst they are in place – if only to ameliorate the worst effects. Cheney and Co. tried unsuccessfully to get Clinton to go all out on Iraq but he refused. I don’t know what his motives were for not doing, but I don’t believe it was simply because he didn't have the excuse of 9/11. The Hawks always knew there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. They were able to portray that manufactured link as the official view and get the country behind them because Bush was a clueless pushover. Considering what followed, I think it is important who’s in the White House. ~ www.fabulousmother.co.uk

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Sun, 2008-10-05 17:34

Kropotkin38

Democrats fight wars Lou, that's undeniable - Clinton was no angel domestically or in fp terms. I certainly wasn't suggesting throwing hands up in despair, but I don't believe that people have to work with the systems that are in place - my plan.... embryonic at this stage I admit :).... is to replace the systems with something entirely different. The problem for me is that voting for the loser legitimises the winner and implicitly denies the right to liberty of all those oppressed by the status quo - voting for the "radical" candidate isn't resistance it's collaboration.

Sun, 2008-10-05 20:38

Enzo

K - check out 'Seeing' by Saramago if you haven't already. Vote blank!

Sun, 2008-10-05 21:26

Kropotkin38

Ordered! Cheers Enzo - presently reading (not reading) a social history of cricket... fell asleep sometime in the 1860s!

Sun, 2008-10-05 21:39

Enzo

Great! Get Blindness too if you're trigger happy on the ordering front. Seeing isn't exactly a sequel, but some of the characters were in Blindness so it adds to the experience if you've read Blindness first. Also, Blindness is one of my favourite books ever, and I think - given your social and political views - you'll like it lots too.

Sun, 2008-10-05 21:56

2Lou

Ah, yes, but... my problem with the idea of changing things from without rather than from within is a practical one. If a transformation occurs on a scale large enough to oust an existing regime, the upheaval always leads to a temporary power vacuum. The Anarchist movements always seem to fall down at this point and a more hierarchically organised force takes over – the Communists usually – and then you’ve just swapped one top down regime for another. I’m a fan of Noam Chomsky, but I heard him being asked about this seemingly inherent flaw in anarchist philosophy once. I was all ears… but then he just said something vague about everybody setting up their own kibbutz. But as it stands, that would still be a kibbutz within an existing state, surely. Someone else would still wield the ultimate power – and the nature of that ultimate power matters. p.s. agree with you about, Democrats and foreign policy, btw – just figured someone more intelligent than Bush wouldn’t have gone for a war that was so stupid on so many levels. ~ www.fabulousmother.co.uk

~
www.fabulousmother.co.uk

Mon, 2008-10-06 05:41

#10

Kropotkin38

There are problems with changing things, that much is clear, but the problems with leaving things as they are and working with the present set-up are, it seems to me, a good deal worse. I am always amused by the idea that it is more practical to press on with reformism than to "demand the impossible" because of the glaringly obvious failures of reformism over the last century and a little bit. In any event, yes Anarchist ideas demand thorough-going cultural and social change; they do not demand one great overnight revolutionary surge. The idea that Anarchist experiments, and even a strong Anarchist movement, might exist whilst the state and capitalism totter on is not unique to Chomsky, and it is important to remember that even under a system as hegemonic as global capitalism the possibilities of a new world, or many new worlds, continue to exist. You might say, without wishing to imply any inevitability, that the new society grows in the body of the old order. The proof of course, that we cannot go on living with capitalism and its politicians will be hard-learned. In the years to come they will fail to address climate change and millions will die; they will fail to address hunger and millions will die; they will fail to manage the problems of the end of American hegemony, and goodness knows how many wars that will cause, and all the while their economic system will destroy people's hopes and dreams, stifle their creativity, and mean that they work all of their days to enrich the venal global elite.

Topic locked