Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:02 PM

Bless Chris Hedges!

Bless him for keeping it real.

151 replies, 37401 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

151 replies	Author	Time	Post
Bless Chris Hedges! (Original post)	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	OP
I suppose he means well, bless his heart.	MineralMan	Jan 2012	#1
Damn. Beat me to it. nt	msanthrope	Jan 2012	#3
Well, if trying to save lives of innocents is 'meaning well' as he has always done	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#16
Well, bless your heart, too, then.	MineralMan	Jan 2012	#19
Leaving death, destruction and misery in their wake	MinervaX	Jan 2012	#45
Go or stay, they can't win.	MineralMan	Jan 2012	#53
I hear a lot of things. I hear about drone attacks escalating and more children dying	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#72
I'm always glad to hear your opinion of me.	MineralMan	Jan 2012	#111
It only takes a second. I type over 120 a minute or faster.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#128
He is one of our finest minds and yet you ridicule him. I find that silly and irresponsible. nt	xiamiam	Jan 2012	#127
He is voting Third Party, I find that silly and irresponsible.	SunsetDreams	Jan 2012	#134
Of course-- he seems to put principles ahead of the 'team'.	Marr	Jan 2012	#140
Bless his heart. nt	msanthrope	Jan 2012	#2
I learned all that from my grandmother,	MineralMan	Jan 2012	#13
I worked in DC with some southern transplants.	msanthrope	Jan 2012	#28
And she would take you out	Are_grits_groceries	Jan 2012	#56
Ah, she died these 40 years ago.	MineralMan	Jan 2012	#108
Can't wait until he starts 3rdPartyUnderground.com!!!	JoePhilly	Jan 2012	#4
Heh	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2012	#8
And which "Obama bad" meme will he subscribe to because he's all over the place.	Liberal_Stalwart71	Jan 2012	#20
Agree ... and I want to see these 3rd party folks get busy on 2016!!!	JoePhilly	Jan 2012	#30
That's my biggest criticism of Ralph Nader and one of the reasons why the Greens ostracized him.	Liberal_Stalwart71	Jan 2012	#39
YUP ... he's like a ground hog who pops out to see his shadow in election years.	JoePhilly	Jan 2012	#41
Love this post!	redqueen	Jan 2012	#60
Thanks ... I'd be happy to see an actual 3rd party ...	JoePhilly	Jan 2012	#74
And if we magically did elect a third party president,	redqueen	Jan 2012	#80
I thought as Chris Hedges does in 1996 and 2000. See, I supported Nader, too. I have to live	Liberal_Stalwart71	Jan 2012	#89
The closest I ever came to that was supporting Kucinich.	redqueen	Jan 2012	#91
well said!	zappaman	Jan 2012	#92
Walking the walk, something very few people as gifted as he is choose to do.	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#5
Agreed. n/t	MuseRider	Jan 2012	#7
Exactly!	proud2BlibKansan	Jan 2012	#122
"When keeping it real goes wrong."	Robb	Jan 2012	#6
Goes wrong	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#9
Heh.	Scurrilous	Jan 2012	#29
Yes, bless his lil heart. n/t	one_voice	Jan 2012	#10
Bless	ProSense	Jan 2012	#11
Thank you, ProSense	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2012	#15
LOL	MinervaX	Jan 2012	#46
I'm	ProSense	Jan 2012	#64
Yes, bless all those who oppose the brutal, illegal, genocidal wars that have slaughtered so	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#12
'Genocidal?'	RZM	Jan 2012	#18
Trying to square the civilian body counts with our poorly defined objectives	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#26
It was genocide.	girl gone mad	Jan 2012	#31
I don't know, how many dead Muslims does it take before it becomes genocide?	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#34
For the record, I haven't made any negative comments about Hedges, nor do I plan to	RZM	Jan 2012	#48
Numbers actually matter more than words in this case imho.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#67
Thank you....	Dragonfli	Jan 2012	#131
Hi Dragonfli,	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#132
The Iraq War was genocidal	cpwm17	Jan 2012	#51
That was a revealing historical moment.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#115
Indeed.	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#21
You and Chris Hedges just don't appreciate all the DIFFERENCES	gratuitous	Jan 2012	#25
Well, I guess I don't want to be any club that turns a blind to blown up children	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#54
Yes and I'm sure a new Republican President can't wait to blow up Iranian children and women. Voting	Pisces	Jan 2012	#100
I agree, which is why I am a Democrat.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#101
Bless his vote that does nothing to help the Democrat WIN against the GOP.	CakeGrrl	Jan 2012	#14
+1000	BlueCaliDem	Jan 2012	#23
How exactly is that any different from our current situation? Obama is pretty well allied with the	Erose999	Jan 2012	#66
Maybe actual principles are more important than political victories	_ed_	Jan 2012	#43
strawman argument nt	zappaman	Jan 2012	#44
No, it isn't. It's a direct response to a poitical argument. nt	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#69
You should look up the definition of a straw man argument	_ed_	Jan 2012	#148
Tell it to people whose human rights are at the mercy of President Gingrich/Romney.	CakeGrrl	Jan 2012	#96
Anwar Al-Awlaki's teenage son was killed in a drone strike	_ed_	Jan 2012	#147
bless him for trying to elect republicans? i'll leave that to you.	dionysus	Jan 2012	#17
Nice straw man argument	_ed_	Jan 2012	#40
Kicked and recommended.	Uncle Joe	Jan 2012	#22
Yes, and DU Terms of Service be damned!	Hugabear	Jan 2012	#24
Problem for you is	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#27
You can copy and paste that all you want.	Union Scribe	Jan 2012	#143
Oh, shush! He's a "professional leftist" and troublemaker who doesn't toe the party line.	Tierra_y_Libertad	Jan 2012	#32
Et tu, Thomas Jefferson?	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#110
Fuck Chris Hedges	zappaman	Jan 2012	#33
Fuck Straw Man Arguments	_ed_	Jan 2012	#36
There's a difference	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#37
so are you advocating voting 3rd party?	zappaman	Jan 2012	#41
What are you babbling about?	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#47
Babbling?	zappaman	Jan 2012	#50
Advocating?	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#55
again...simple question	zappaman	Jan 2012	#57
Nothing requires me to tell you how I will vote	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#61
okay	zappaman	Jan 2012	#63
While I can't speak for whatchamacallit...	progressoid	Jan 2012	#103
True, which is why I will be voting D all the way down the line.	zappaman	Jan 2012	#114
Where do you get off demanding everyone	Union Scribe	Jan 2012	#144
Thanks	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#125
So to be clear, you are explicitly promoting the idea of voting 3rd Party.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#59
Where did I do that?	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#62
yes or no?	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#65
Where does the poster advocate for a third party? Show the words, thanks.	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#71
this whole god-damn thread is doing it. Don't be facile.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#75
I don't need to give you a break because I don't agree with your, um, creative speculation.	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#82
My, um, creative speculation is, um, dead fucking obvious because, um, Chris Hedges said TODAY	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#99
No, actually, this whole thread is not 'doing it'.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#90
Right.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#97
Not to me there isn't.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#102
Give other posters a fucking break.	Union Scribe	Jan 2012	#145
Okay, I did all those things. And I still think Chris Hedges is an ass.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#146
That's what it sounds like to me...nt	SidDithers	Jan 2012	#68
The poster won't come out and say it	zappaman	Jan 2012	#70
Me, too! I've been there. Done that. It's tired. Third parties have absolutely no influence on	Liberal_Stalwart71	Jan 2012	#93
no Sid, you got it all wrong! just because they hate obama, and are kissing this idiot's ass for	dionysus	Jan 2012	#105
Lol! Keep trying.	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#107
Oh, I will. You can count on that...nt	SidDithers	Jan 2012	#116
To be really clear, Chris Hedges has said he will be voting third party. The person you are	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#85
+1...nt	SidDithers	Jan 2012	#52
Post removed	Post removed	Jan 2012	#35
"Acolytes"	_ed_	Jan 2012	#38
ROFL...	SidDithers	Jan 2012	#49
Yes, we should show extra compassion to the mentally incapacitated	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#58
You apparently are talking about some other Chris Hedges and not this one:	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#73
WEEEVE KWIS HEDGES AWONE!!!!!!!	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#76
Who can argue with that kind of intellect?	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#78
Ralph Nader also had an impressive resume, once upon a time.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#95
a paid GOP stooge?	progressoid	Jan 2012	#104
He took money from Republicans in 2004.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#112
The SC stole the 2000 election. Gore won that election!	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#106
Nader made the theft way fucking easier, didn't he.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#113
No, he didn't actually. The 300,000 Democrats who voted for Bush	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#121
No, it didn't die a long time ago, because it's still true. And THEN Nader took $ from Republicans	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#123
Politics isn't about personalities, it's about issues.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#126
Now Sabrina, you know good and well that some of these folks entire model of politics	TheKentuckian	Jan 2012	#130
Lol, that last sentence, so tragically true and to me, such a disappointment.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#133
I made the same error.	TheKentuckian	Jan 2012	#150
That last sentence pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?	woo me with science	Jan 2012	#149
You were urging compassion for the mentally incapacitated?	Marr	Jan 2012	#141
Hurr	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#142
Nah, he was talking about this one.	zappaman	Jan 2012	#77
Uh huh. And before he said that, all the same people appreciated him here at DU.	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#79
so what?	zappaman	Jan 2012	#81
I have long appreciated Chris Hedges and will continue to appreciate him long after	EFerrari	Jan 2012	#83
Cool.	zappaman	Jan 2012	#84
Hedges is not a Democrat, thus I don't expect him to act like one.	Bluenorthwest	Jan 2012	#86
Nothing wrong with agreeing with some things he says	zappaman	Jan 2012	#87
Chris Hedges is a great guy! :)	limpyhobbler	Jan 2012	#88
Yeah real stupid	SpartanDem	Jan 2012	#94
The difference is that Gore ran a bad campaign.	zappaman	Jan 2012	#98
Who are you talking to??	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#109
I like this new "you're chasing us away from the Democratic Party" meme. It's a hoot.	Robb	Jan 2012	#117
I'm glad you like it, as it is true.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#118
I was being facetious. It's a pile of horseshit.	Robb	Jan 2012	#119
Well, I'm not going to argue about it, but anytime you want some evidence I'll be happy	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#120
Fuck him. He's trying to elect Republicans.	DevonRex	Jan 2012	#124
This fight isnt between the D's and the R's as many posters here pretend.	rhett o rick	Jan 2012	#129
Wow...	Rex	Jan 2012	#135
Here	Cali_Democrat	Jan 2012	#137
The previous post was a result of this	SunsetDreams	Jan 2012	#138
Who?	boppers	Jan 2012	#136
blessing are so rare nowadays, how could i not rec?	NuttyFluffers	Jan 2012	#139
He's Mostly On The Money	colsohlibgal	Jan 2012	#151

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:03 PM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

1. I suppose he means well, bless his heart.

Maybe.

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:04 PM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

3. Damn. Beat me to it. nt

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:21 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

16. Well, if trying to save lives of innocents is 'meaning well' as he has always done

which was the reason he is and was, especially during the Bush years when the illegal slaughter of hundreds of thousands in Iraq, began, a spokesperson, someone who had a voice and one of the few with the courage to use at that time, for the Left who shared his outrage over Bush's foreign policies and wars for oil and profit.

He is a man of conscience, they are rare these days, although I do see more of them emerging, thankfully.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:23 PM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

19. Well, bless your heart, too, then.

Did you hear that our troops are out of Iraq, now?

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:44 PM

MinervaX (169 posts)

45. Leaving death, destruction and misery in their wake

Reply to this post

Response to MinervaX (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:54 PM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

53. Go or stay, they can't win.

They were there when Obama took office. Now they're not.

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:15 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

72. I hear a lot of things. I hear about drone attacks escalating and more children dying

I haven't heard about any accountability for the war criminals who destroyed Iraq and killed so many of its people, have you?

And really, some people are good at snark, and some are not. I don't think it suits your style. Just my opinion of course.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #72)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:21 PM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

111. I'm always glad to hear your opinion of me.

It keeps you nice and busy, and that's always good. Idle hands, as they say...

Do you actually believe that it is possible in the United States to charge a former President and his staff with war crimes? It is not possible to do that. No sane person would ever attempt such a thing. As much as I'd enjoy seeing GWB sitting on a witness stand in his own trial, I'm not naive enough to thing such a thing could ever take place.

Life is reality. Those who seek fantasy will generally be disappointed. No US President will be charged with any such thing, especially since Congress approved the terrible attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. Was it wrong? Of course it was. But, wasting your time trying to imagine that such a thing will happen is as futile as thinking that replying to me on DU will affect my participation here. Neither will happen.

Am I not good at snark? That may well be. You have said so, and must think it to be true. Do you truly suppose I will modify my participation because you think I do not do snark well? I suppose you do, just as you suppose that it is even conceivable that a US President will be brought up on charges for military actions approved by Congress.

Well, dream on. And please, by all means, continue to share your negative opinion of me. My shoulders are broad, and can easily bear such a light weight, despite my advancing years.

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #111)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:15 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

128. It only takes a second. I type over 120 a minute or faster.

No sane person would even consider allowing war criminals to go free. But it is not unusual for this happen, it happened in South America and elsewhere, but now decades later, some of those war criminals who escaped justice are finally getting what they deserve.

The problem is the victims never forget, nor do their loved or other people of conscience.

Nixon was not above the law. True he never was tried, but he he was disgraced and for a lot less than the Bush gang are responsible for.

So it is not a fantasy that US Officials can and should be held accountable for crimes. That is our system, unless you think everything this country claims to stand for is a fantasy.

When a country does not take care of its own criminals, other countries will. As of now, three countries are preparing to prosecute Bush era war criminals. It's a shame we did not do it ourselves.

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:06 PM

xiamiam (4,906 posts)

127. He is one of our finest minds and yet you ridicule him. I find that silly and irresponsible. nt

Reply to this post

Response to xiamiam (Reply #127)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:02 AM

SunsetDreams (8,571 posts)

134. He is voting Third Party, I find that silly and irresponsible.

He could be Einstein for all I care, that doesn't make his stance or reasoning anymore acceptable. I don't have to agree with everything he says or does. I learned something today, that he has always voted Third Party, he didn't vote for Obama in 2008, either. It sure puts his opinion on the Democratic Party under a whole different lens, and I will judge it accordingly now.

Reply to this post

Response to xiamiam (Reply #127)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:11 AM

Marr (20,317 posts)

140. Of course-- he seems to put principles ahead of the 'team'.

Anyone who questions the the team or it's leaders are to be shoved under the bus.

Back up a few years and every one of these people so eagerly slamming Hedges would've been (and for the most part, *were*) cheering him and calling him a 'national treasure'. But now the same policies they used to feel so comfortable bitching about are regularly endorsed by their idols, so obviously the principles have to go.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:04 PM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

2. Bless his heart. nt

Reply to this post

Response to msanthrope (Reply #2)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:19 PM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

13. I learned all that from my grandmother,

who was nobody's fool, bless her heart.

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:29 PM

msanthrope (37,549 posts)

28. I worked in DC with some southern transplants.

'Bless his heart,' was oft-applied to Mr. Bush Sr., our fearless leader at the time.

Reply to this post

Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:57 PM

Are_grits_groceries (17,111 posts)

56. And she would take you out

for using 'bless her heart' on her.

Reply to this post

Response to Are_grits_groceries (Reply #56)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:46 PM

MineralMan (144,945 posts)

108. Ah, she died these 40 years ago.

She'd have laughed, as she often did.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:06 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

4. Can't wait until he starts 3rdPartyUnderground.com!!!

What's the date for that?

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:08 PM

BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)

8. Heh

I love your enthusiasm.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:24 PM

Liberal_Stalwart71 (20,450 posts)

20. And which "Obama bad" meme will he subscribe to because he's all over the place.

Sounds familiar around these parts.

Reply to this post

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:31 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

30. Agree ... and I want to see these 3rd party folks get busy on 2016!!!

Hell ... I'd be happy if the most disgruntled folks started a "Progressive 2016" group.

Who do they plan to run? They need to get busy.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #30)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:40 PM

Liberal_Stalwart71 (20,450 posts)

39. That's my biggest criticism of Ralph Nader and one of the reasons why the Greens ostracized him.

He would rear his ugly head every four years yelling about how Democrats=Republicans. And yet, he doesn't build a party. He is out for himself. He hasn't run a resilient campaign at the local/state levels, grooming candidates for those offices. He didn't help the Greens run viable candidates for congressional offices. He had done absolutely NOTHING to build the Green Party. The leaders finally caught wind of this, got smart, and kicked him out.

People like Hedges who talk a great game about how the political parties are the same has not done a damn thing to create a new progressive party. All they do is talk, talk, talk!

It gets real tired.

Reply to this post

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:41 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

41. YUP ... he's like a ground hog who pops out to see his shadow in election years.

Reply to this post

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #39)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:02 PM

redqueen (112,669 posts)

60. Love this post!

You build a third party from the grassroots up, starting local.

Not being a spoiler in an election you haven't a hope in hell of winning.

Kinda obvious, that.

Reply to this post

Response to redqueen (Reply #60)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:18 PM

JoePhilly (27,787 posts)

74. Thanks ... I'd be happy to see an actual 3rd party ...

But one won't just appear out of nowhere.

Reply to this post

Response to JoePhilly (Reply #74)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:25 PM

redqueen (112,669 posts)

80. And if we magically did elect a third party president,

exactly how much is that supposed to influence congress?

How many third party politicians have dedicated activists managed to get into the state houses? Or city halls?

If all these third party views are so all-fired popular with the masses, as is so often claimed, where are all the county, city, or state candidates that have managed to get elected?

Reply to this post

Response to redqueen (Reply #60)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:57 PM

Liberal_Stalwart71 (20,450 posts)

89. I thought as Chris Hedges does in 1996 and 2000. See, I supported Nader, too. I have to live

with that decision for the rest of my life. But I was very young and incredibly naive about the political process back then.

I've stated this many times, but it's one thing to be disappointed about "change" not coming quickly enough or about not agreeing with everything a candidate does. It's all together another thing to understand how the political process/governance works.

We see Nader every few years or so. Even after becoming a pariah of the Greens, one would think that he would use that grassroots energy that he has amassed over the years to built a Nader Party or some kind of progressive "third way," if you will. He doesn't do this. Election after election...even in off-year elections, Nader doesn't run any candidates at the local/state level.

Look, the Democrats have been demolished at the local/state levels because Republicans have been able to dominate local and state offices, as well as judgeships. It's like they don't even care about the presidency; they are squarely focused at the local and state levels where they have been able to do the most damage.

The Democratic Party had better wise up and get smart quick!

Yeah, be angry at Obama. I get it. I totally understand this as a former Green Party independent.

However, understand the art of politics and governance and get active in local politics if you can't support congressional Democrats or the president.

Reply to this post

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Reply #89)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:01 PM

redqueen (112,669 posts)

91. The closest I ever came to that was supporting Kucinich.

I worked for him, went out door to door, phone banking, etc.

I learned something during that election. There truly are not enough people supporting those 'out there' policies.

If there were, there WOULD be a third-party underground, and it would be taking off. Instead we've got RacistRandianNutjobs-R-Us and... well that's really the most popular third-party type candidate there is... and that seems to say a lot.

Reply to this post

Response to redqueen (Reply #91)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:03 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

92. well said!

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:07 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

5. Walking the walk, something very few people as gifted as he is choose to do.

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:08 PM

MuseRider (33,104 posts)

7. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:22 PM

proud2BlibKansan (96,793 posts)

122. Exactly!

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:08 PM

Robb (39,665 posts)

6. "When keeping it real goes wrong."

Reply to this post

Response to Robb (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:09 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

9. Goes wrong

for the status quo.

Reply to this post

Response to Robb (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:31 PM

Scurrilous (38,676 posts)

29. Heh.

Time for some Dave Chappelle:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=11915

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:10 PM

one_voice (20,043 posts)

10. Yes, bless his lil heart. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:11 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

11. Bless

...him for not being a Democrat. The Green Party can have him.

Hedges always votes third party. He did not vote for Obama in 2008. He makes this declaration every election as if it's new.

ONLY NADER IS RIGHT ON THE ISSUES
http://www.naderlibrary.com/nader.teamemail110308.1.htm

Ralph Nader Is Tired of Running for President
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002179101

The "Bush = (insert Democrat's name)" equation has failed miserably and with devastating consequences.

There's no difference between Gore and Bush...and we got the Iraq war.

There's no difference between Kerry and Bush (evidently, the death and destruction of the Iraq war wasn't difference enough)...and we got the economic collapse.

Reply to this post

Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:21 PM

BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)

15. Thank you, ProSense

If anyone is keeping it real here, you are.

Many seem to forget that little nugget about his false equation that gave us Bush, and the very policies they now SO abhor. Yet they're willing to do it ALL over again.

Un-friggin-believable.

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:45 PM

MinervaX (169 posts)

46. LOL

Reply to this post

Response to MinervaX (Reply #46)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:08 PM

ProSense (116,464 posts)

64. I'm

much happier than Hedges because I don't believe that allowing Republicans to win is change for the better.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:17 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

12. Yes, bless all those who oppose the brutal, illegal, genocidal wars that have slaughtered so

many human beings and which show no sign of stopping. Someone who has been at the scenes of many of those crimes himself, Chris Hedges' perspective is a lot different than that of those who simply care about 'winning'.

We need thousands more like him if things are ever to change in this world. Maybe we are finally getting there.

He was one of the most popular writers during the Bush years, one of the few early on, who, when the cowardly MSM refused to even talk the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan, did so and the left cheered his every word, as they should.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:22 PM

RZM (8,556 posts)

18. 'Genocidal?'

Are you really arguing that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq constitute genocide? Because I don't think very many other people are arguing that.

They aren't good things, for sure. I'm glad we're out of Iraq and I think it's long past time to call it a day in Afghanistan. But I just don't see how those wars constitute genocide.

And let me pre-empt you if you're going to argue that the sectarian cleansing in Iraq constitutes genocide, because the basis for that conflict is not ethno-linguistic identity (you could make that case if you brought the Kurds in, of course).

Reply to this post

Response to RZM (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:28 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

26. Trying to square the civilian body counts with our poorly defined objectives

leaves little doubt.

Reply to this post

Response to RZM (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:32 PM

girl gone mad (20,634 posts)

31. It was genocide.

Restricting the bombing to only military targets was not part of the U.S. war plan whereas targets included hospitals, electric utilities, schools, factories, water treatment plants, irrigation systems, food storage facilities and community health centres. Over 200,000 people died, the majority of whom were civilians.

In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war. As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.

Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide in Iraq is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person. The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily and mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraq’s physical destruction in whole or in part. Iraq is a clear-cut case of genocide.

The carnage resulting from this genocide clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest practice. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/05/21/genocide-in-iraq

Reply to this post

Response to RZM (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:37 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

34. I don't know, how many dead Muslims does it take before it becomes genocide?

Call it murder, slaughter, whatever, the problem is, the dead cannot be brought back and few voices were raised over the past decade in an attempt to stop it, so I have and always will have the utmost respect for those who tried, at least. Hedges is on the right side of history, and has been for a long time on these issues. It's sad to see the 'left' abandoning what they use to believe in not so long ago. But people like him, who has been eye-witness to these murders/slaughters/genocides, take your pick, is still saying what he was saying when he used to be a hero of the left. He hasn't changed. Funny isn't it, the fact that on progressive forums during the Bush era you would never have seen a negative comment about Chris Hedges.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #34)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:48 PM

RZM (8,556 posts)

48. For the record, I haven't made any negative comments about Hedges, nor do I plan to

First off, I haven't read the piece in question here. From what I can tell from the response, he has argued for a third party of some kind. I'm not all that invested in the 'third party/Greenwald/Nader/progressive opposition wars' here on DU, other than noting that it might end in tears once the Republicans have a nominee. If Hedges wants to argue for a third party, that's his business and I don't really care. I plan on voting Dem no matter what for the foreseable future.

And 'Muslims' are not an ethnic group, of course. There are Muslims all over the world, including hundreds of milions outside of the Middle East, which as you know isn't a homogeneous region in the first place.

But words do matter here. That's all I was saying.

Reply to this post

Response to RZM (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:11 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

67. Numbers actually matter more than words in this case imho.

Better yet, I would like names. Genocide, Collateral Damage, 'what's in a name, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

This is just 1 little boy, and he is one of the lucky ones. He survived, at least up that point, sadly we do not keep track of these children whose countries we invade. So we don't really know and we don't really care, as a nation. But they do, his family, his loved ones. They really are human beings no different to us.

Third Party, Collateral Damage/Genocide whatever, Chris Hedges has seen these dead children in conflicts around the world, maybe he knows more than we do. Maybe our party loyalty is not such a good thing after all, at least not for the dead. But we can't talk about these things, discuss them, try to find a better way because 'there's an election coming'.

No one has been held accountable in this country for the murders/deaths/collateral damage/torture etc. of so many, many human beings. I care about how history will view how the American people reacted to these horrors perpetrated by their government against innocent people, that they at least acknowledged them. I would like to be on the right side of history when it is finally written. So all I can do is say how I feel about it, and all Chris Hedges can do is what he is doing.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:58 AM

Dragonfli (10,622 posts)

131. Thank you....

Reply to this post

Response to Dragonfli (Reply #131)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:40 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

132. Hi Dragonfli,

Nice to see you, I hope all is well with you! And you're welcome.

Reply to this post

Response to RZM (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

cpwm17 (3,829 posts)

51. The Iraq War was genocidal

The Iraq war didn't just start in 2003, it had been going on since 1990; though war isn't really an accurate word for it since the killing was almost all one sided.

Now this is beyond a doubt genocide:

We also bombed Iraq throughout the 90's, murdering scores of Iraqis.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the war-mongers needed an enemy. Saddam was the most available one at the time. So the US turned on their brutal ally and made him into a monster. They fabricated a phony story about Iraqi soldiers murdering babies in incubators, and off to mass-murder we went.

Reply to this post

Response to cpwm17 (Reply #51)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:35 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

115. That was a revealing historical moment.

Not only were all those children killed by the sanctions, generations are being born now in Iraq deformed because of the use of chemical weapons by the 'allied forces'.

Genocide. I remember when the UN argued over Rwanda and whether or not the word Genocide could be applied. Had it been, some action could have been taken to stop it. But by the time they got around to calling it 'genocide' the genocide had reached nearly one million deaths.

And we seem to be getting ready for more war and more death and destruction.

Failing doesn't deter the war machine either. The failure in Iraq, in Afghanistan and the latest failure, Libya which is now on the brink of civil war with tens of thousands of civilians locked up and all sides opposed to our puppet government there. Another tragedy of Western foreign policy. A country that had such a high living standard, has now been destroyed with violence a part of their daily lives.

Sometimes I think the world is run by madmen, and women of course.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:24 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

21. Indeed.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #12)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:25 PM

gratuitous (80,071 posts)

25. You and Chris Hedges just don't appreciate all the DIFFERENCES

If you'd just quit focusing on the results, and pay all your attention to the rhetoric, why, you'd understand Political Reality in no time at all! As an added bonus, you'd get to be in the club that always shows up to slap each other on the back for being so brave and courageous as to ignore events and concentrate on fine-sounding words.

Reply to this post

Response to gratuitous (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:55 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

54. Well, I guess I don't want to be any club that turns a blind to blown up children

I remember some of the names of those children. They were hard to find, because we here in the US are not allowed to see those bodies or know their names, but a few brave journalists, and they were brave, humanized some of our 'collateral damage' at risk to themselves sometimes.

They were witnesses to the fact that human beings had died, and I thank them for that.

One I will never forget, named Ali, one of the first victims of our 'shock and awe' lost his entire family on the first night of bombing, while here in the US, the cheering was deafening. I don't know where he is now, grown up and in his late teens or early twenties, an innocent victim. Just one of so, so many.

Our foreign policies need to be changed. The killing needs to stop. I haven't changed, Hedges hasn't changed, but something has.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #54)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:31 PM

Pisces (5,477 posts)

100. Yes and I'm sure a new Republican President can't wait to blow up Iranian children and women. Voting

3rd party is a vote for a War with Iran.

Reply to this post

Response to Pisces (Reply #100)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:34 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

101. I agree, which is why I am a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:19 PM

CakeGrrl (10,611 posts)

14. Bless his vote that does nothing to help the Democrat WIN against the GOP.

Reply to this post

Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:25 PM

BlueCaliDem (15,438 posts)

23. +1000

Maybe one day people will wake up and understand our winner-take-all system.

Hedges was a Naderite. Realistically speaking, what would Nader have done with a Republican controlled congress? Yes, we even have one NOW.

Nader would have been a lame duck from the get go, and then you'd see Democrats unify with Republicans in Congress to oppose everything and anything he wanted to do and nothing would happen. The old adage, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" would've been on full display and what good would that do any of us?

Reply to this post

Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #23)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:09 PM

Erose999 (5,624 posts)

66. How exactly is that any different from our current situation? Obama is pretty well allied with the

Blue Dogs and GOP moderates. There's this giant bloc of centrist "heaven forbid we offend the Tea Party" mediocrity going on. Nothing is getting done.

Reply to this post

Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #14)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:42 PM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

43. Maybe actual principles are more important than political victories

Maybe there's something more important than the 24 hours news cycle and winning the horse race.

Reply to this post

Response to _ed_ (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:44 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

44. strawman argument nt

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #44)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:12 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

69. No, it isn't. It's a direct response to a poitical argument. nt

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:05 AM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

148. You should look up the definition of a straw man argument

Because I was directly responding to the point that Hedges isn't helping Obama beat the GOP. My point was that there are more important things than elections, that there are more important things than "winning" the 24 hour news cycle.

That's not a straw man.

Reply to this post

Response to _ed_ (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:25 PM

CakeGrrl (10,611 posts)

96. Tell it to people whose human rights are at the mercy of President Gingrich/Romney.

Think it's nothing more than "winning the horse race" to someone whose civil rights or Social Security safety net is on the line?

Reply to this post

Response to CakeGrrl (Reply #96)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 08:45 AM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

147. Anwar Al-Awlaki's teenage son was killed in a drone strike

What about people who will live or die as a result of Obama's drone strikes on American citizens?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:21 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

17. bless him for trying to elect republicans? i'll leave that to you.

Reply to this post

Response to dionysus (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:41 PM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

40. Nice straw man argument

It's easier than dealing with what he actually says, I suppose.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:25 PM

Uncle Joe (54,858 posts)

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, whatchamacallit.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:25 PM

Hugabear (10,340 posts)

24. Yes, and DU Terms of Service be damned!

Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Reply to this post

Response to Hugabear (Reply #24)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:29 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

27. Problem for you is

nowhere in my post was that done. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Response to Hugabear (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:06 AM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

143. You can copy and paste that all you want.

It doesn't change the fact that Hedges isn't a DUer and that it doesn't say shit about posting positive comments about him.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:32 PM

Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)

32. Oh, shush! He's a "professional leftist" and troublemaker who doesn't toe the party line.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

Reply to this post

Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:11 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

110. Et tu, Thomas Jefferson?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:33 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

33. Fuck Chris Hedges

and any other asshole who thinks there is no difference between Obama and the clowns on the right.

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:39 PM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

36. Fuck Straw Man Arguments

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:39 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

37. There's a difference

but it's a matter of degrees...

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:41 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

41. so are you advocating voting 3rd party?

Like Nobel-prize winning/asshole Chirs Hedges is?

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #41)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:47 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

47. What are you babbling about?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #47)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

50. Babbling?

Hardly.
Chris Hedges: "In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate"

So, are you also advocating voting 3rd party in this election?

It's a simple question.

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #50)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:56 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

55. Advocating?

no. Wishing?...

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #55)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:58 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

57. again...simple question

will you be voting 3rd party like Chris?
Chris Hedges: "In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate"
who's babbling now?

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #57)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:05 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

61. Nothing requires me to tell you how I will vote

so stop asking. Simple enough?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:07 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

63. okay

that's an answer.
just so you know, I don't have a problem declaring my vote for Obama.
if you can't say the same, I wonder why you are here?

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #63)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:44 PM

progressoid (47,679 posts)

103. While I can't speak for whatchamacallit...

a lot of us are here for more than just Obama's re-election. As it happens, the Democratic Party is about more than just one person.

Also, I'm pretty sure this ain't called PresidentObamaUnderground.com.

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #103)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:32 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

114. True, which is why I will be voting D all the way down the line.

You?

ETA: to fix an unbelievable Freudian slip!

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #114)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:09 AM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

144. Where do you get off demanding everyone

abandon the privacy of the voting booth? You're not a hall monitor.

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #103)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:30 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

125. Thanks

that sums up nicely how I feel about it.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #55)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:01 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

59. So to be clear, you are explicitly promoting the idea of voting 3rd Party.

right?

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #59)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:07 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

62. Where did I do that?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #62)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:08 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

65. yes or no?

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #65)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:14 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

71. Where does the poster advocate for a third party? Show the words, thanks.

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #71)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:18 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

75. this whole god-damn thread is doing it. Don't be facile.

Oh, yeah, let's play the game where we pretend we don't know what this is all about. Give me a fucking break.

Chris "I'm voting 3rd Party... again!" Hedges can fuck himself.

And he can take Ralph Nader along for the ride, too. Given all the money Nader has taken from Republicans over the years, they ought to be able to afford a real nice go-fuck-themselves vacation.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:28 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

82. I don't need to give you a break because I don't agree with your, um, creative speculation.

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #82)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:29 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

99. My, um, creative speculation is, um, dead fucking obvious because, um, Chris Hedges said TODAY

"In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate".

So, um, it's pretty fucking obvious what this is all about, um, despite cute attempts at, um, pretend ignorance.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #75)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:59 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

90. No, actually, this whole thread is not 'doing it'.

This thread is paying tribute to a man who used to be a hero to the left when he said almost the identical same things he is now saying. He voted third party then. I don't recall the outrage. He was respected for his opinions on major issues facing this country. And his choices regarding who he votes for, are his and have little to do with anyone else's.

Do you have any friends, family members who do not vote the way you would like them to? Most of us do, we still love them, that doesn't mean we are going to vote the way they vote, does it? Your post makes no sense frankly.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #90)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:27 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

97. Right.

There's no connection between the OP and Hedges' statement "In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate", which was posted on truthdig TODAY.

Again. Give me a fucking break.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #97)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:37 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

102. Not to me there isn't.

And I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to think I know what anyone else is 'thinking' frankly. I know Hedges has always been a champion of liberal causes. People read him because they are Liberals. The Right certainly has no time for him. They hate him, always have.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:11 AM

Union Scribe (7,099 posts)

145. Give other posters a fucking break.

Then read your sig line and look in the mirror.

Reply to this post

Response to Union Scribe (Reply #145)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:31 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

146. Okay, I did all those things. And I still think Chris Hedges is an ass.

And I still think the cheering for him, today, seems to oddly coincide with his statement, today, that he's voting 3rd Party.

You cute retort aside, there's nothing inconsistent with my sig line. There are plenty of places on the internet for Nader retreads to gush over the idea of handing the White House to the GOP on 'principle'. It's not "censorship" to mention that DU just isn't one of them.

Actually, it's right there in the fucking rules, which seems to catch a small sub-group here by surprise, every 4 years, like god-damn clockwork.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #59)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:11 PM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

68. That's what it sounds like to me...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:12 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

70. The poster won't come out and say it

but it's pretty obvious.

Reply to this post

Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:03 PM

Liberal_Stalwart71 (20,450 posts)

93. Me, too! I've been there. Done that. It's tired. Third parties have absolutely no influence on

policy outcomes.

These people are delusional. As delusional and naive as I was back in 2000 when I supported Nader.

Never again!!

OBAMA-BIDEN 2012!!!

Reply to this post

Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:02 PM

dionysus (26,467 posts)

105. no Sid, you got it all wrong! just because they hate obama, and are kissing this idiot's ass for

throwing away his vote and helping the GOP... why, in no way does this mean they're endorsing a third party! it's not as if three years of this type of thing constitutes an obvious pattern... silly you!

just like when people like sirota fellate ron paul.. by gum.. it doesn't mean he's supporting him! just cause he's saying all those nice things....

ah fuck it...

got a candy heart i can borrrow Sid?

Reply to this post

Response to SidDithers (Reply #68)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:19 PM

whatchamacallit (15,558 posts)

107. Lol! Keep trying.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #107)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:36 PM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

116. Oh, I will. You can count on that...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #59)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

85. To be really clear, Chris Hedges has said he will be voting third party. The person you are

addressing is NOT Chris Hedges, just fyi!

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #33)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:52 PM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

52. +1...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Post removed

Response to Post removed (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:40 PM

_ed_ (1,734 posts)

38. "Acolytes"

You make me laugh

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:50 PM

SidDithers (44,228 posts)

49. ROFL...

His third-party support is "keeping it real"?

Sid

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 04:59 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

58. Yes, we should show extra compassion to the mentally incapacitated

or otherwise brain damaged, intellectually challenged, befuddled, confused, cognitively handicapped, or delusional people in this world.

Yes, yes. Bless Chris Hedges.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #58)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:18 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

73. You apparently are talking about some other Chris Hedges and not this one:

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He also received in 2002 the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University[1] and The University of Toronto. He writes a weekly column on Mondays for Truthdig and authored what The New York Times described as "a call to arms" for the first issue of The Occupied Wall Street Journal, the newspaper giving voice to The Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park, New York City

in which case, bless your heart.

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:21 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

76. WEEEVE KWIS HEDGES AWONE!!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #76)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:24 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

78. Who can argue with that kind of intellect?

LMAO

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #78)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:25 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

95. Ralph Nader also had an impressive resume, once upon a time.

Then he helped Bush steal the 2000 election, and after that became a paid GOP stooge.

Sad, really.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #95)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:46 PM

progressoid (47,679 posts)

104. a paid GOP stooge?

Gotta link to that or is it just hyperbole Monday?

Reply to this post

Response to progressoid (Reply #104)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:28 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

112. He took money from Republicans in 2004.

Fact.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-09/news/17435056_1_nader-voters-nader-s-campaign-presidential-candidate-ralph-nader

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/10/MNG9J7JMDK1.DTL

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #95)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:08 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

106. The SC stole the 2000 election. Gore won that election!

How quickly we forget, but then there were never any consequences for the felonious five so this is what happens when allow criminals and traitors off the hook. We can blame perfectly innocent people for their crimes.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #106)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:31 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

113. Nader made the theft way fucking easier, didn't he.

"We" don't forget, quickly or otherwise. I remember the exact same bullshit false equivalencies between the parties being thrown around by Nader supporters in 2000.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #113)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:17 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

121. No, he didn't actually. The 300,000 Democrats who voted for Bush

maybe made a bit easier, but Gore still won regardless of all that. That old 'Nader did it' meme died a long time ago. But it's a shame that people refused to place the blame for what was a huge crime against this country, where it belonged. I'm sure the Felonious Five were grateful for the distraction though.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #121)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:51 PM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

123. No, it didn't die a long time ago, because it's still true. And THEN Nader took $ from Republicans

in 2004.

The guy is an inexcusable ass.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #123)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 10:50 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

126. Politics isn't about personalities, it's about issues.

People gravitate to those who they believe best represent them. Democrats party with Karl Rove at DC cocktail parties. They live in a bubble once they get to DC. Nader took a comparitively tiny amount of money from a Repub operative, airc.

Democrats take huge amounts of money from Wall Street. Do you think those Corps and Wall St execs are all Democrats?

Many of the same Big Business Donors who gave to Bush, gave to Obama. Do you attack Dems for doing this also? It's really irrelevant who they take money from because they all do it and they don't ask to see their Party affiliation.

The problem IS the money. That any of them have to take handouts from Corporate American, most of whom are probably Republicans, is the problem.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #106)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:52 AM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

130. Now Sabrina, you know good and well that some of these folks entire model of politics

is based on the actual officials bearing no responsibility and many times that less accountability.

The other piece seems to be that if they call themselves or politicians "centrist" then they inherently are correct and any issues are because the "centrists" were not sufficiently clapped for.

Then of course is the "fact" that it is not the content of the policy that matters but the letter next to the name of the person that endorses it.

Filter those important axioms to live by a logic that states that the Republicans are evil incarnate that will scuttle the nation (with which I cannot disagree) while believing that assimilating their policies is tolerable or often seemingly desirable.

Reply to this post

Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #130)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:55 AM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

133. Lol, that last sentence, so tragically true and to me, such a disappointment.

Did you know I actually thought we would never put party over principle? I really did, during the Bush years I used to watch the Repubs bend over backwards to excuse everything he did and was so grateful I was among people who stood for principles.

Edited to add, I did not think that politicians might not stray from principles, I just thought that we, democrats, would pressure them to stick to their principles and would never make excuses for them if they did not.

That was so, so naive I realize now

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #133)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:43 PM

TheKentuckian (23,947 posts)

150. I made the same error.

I thought we as a party, at least in general, had principles.

Reply to this post

Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #130)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 09:08 AM

woo me with science (32,139 posts)

149. That last sentence pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

Well said.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:14 AM

Marr (20,317 posts)

141. You were urging compassion for the mentally incapacitated?

For your sake, I hope others take it to heart.

Reply to this post

Response to Marr (Reply #141)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:36 AM

Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)

142. Hurr

Right back at'cha, Chief.

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:23 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

77. Nah, he was talking about this one.

Chris Hedges: "In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate."

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #77)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:25 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

79. Uh huh. And before he said that, all the same people appreciated him here at DU.

So what?

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #79)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:26 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

81. so what?

do you agree or disagree with him?
I don't and will vote Obama.
you?

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:30 PM

EFerrari (163,986 posts)

83. I have long appreciated Chris Hedges and will continue to appreciate him long after

Obama is gone.

For some of us, life doesn't revolve around the millionaire's theater that is our presidential elections.

Reply to this post

Response to EFerrari (Reply #83)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:32 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

84. Cool.

nice dodge of the question.
but that's okay, your dodge speaks volumes.

Reply to this post

Response to zappaman (Reply #84)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:42 PM

Bluenorthwest (45,319 posts)

86. Hedges is not a Democrat, thus I don't expect him to act like one.

That fact has nothing to do with his excellent work. He's more of an independent than I am. I still like much of what he has to say, his conclusions as to what to in elections do not need to match up.
See, I don't need to agree with 100% of what anyone says to agree with some of it. This is good news for the President, who opposes marriage equality and still expects our support, don't you think? So the attacking of a person for not agreeing with you on all things is not a smart political precedent if you ask me. Petty and short sighted.

Reply to this post

Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #86)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:44 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

87. Nothing wrong with agreeing with some things he says

In this case...Chris Hedges: "In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate" ...he is dead wrong and should be called out for it.
how is that short sighted?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 05:45 PM

limpyhobbler (8,244 posts)

88. Chris Hedges is a great guy! :)

Just because he votes Green doesn't make him an asshole.

I think it just means he can't post on DU.

It's just a disagreement about political tactics. Jeesh.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:06 PM

SpartanDem (4,533 posts)

94. Yeah real stupid

you and your ilk will be whining the loudest to get rid Mitt or Newt. Just like after Bush won, when all you people did was shit on Gore before the election.

Reply to this post

Response to SpartanDem (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 06:28 PM

zappaman (20,587 posts)

98. The difference is that Gore ran a bad campaign.

The Obama campaign was a thing of beauty, so this one won't be easy to steal.
(knock on wood)

Reply to this post

Response to SpartanDem (Reply #94)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 07:53 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

109. Who are you talking to??

This kind of off the wall comment is what is so dividing this party. I don't know where you were, but almost everyone I know on DU worked hard to get Gore, Kerry and Obama elected. We won on Gore, the SC stole it, and won again in 2008.

How dare you speak to people who have put so much work and effort into keeping the Democratic party in power when you know nothing at all about the people you are calling 'you people'.

I sure hope you do not represent this party because anyone on the fence, such as Independents eg, who are spoken to this way, will be lost.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #109)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:42 PM

Robb (39,665 posts)

117. I like this new "you're chasing us away from the Democratic Party" meme. It's a hoot.

It's like the "Gosh willikers, do you think Obama would be proud of you?" etc. etc.

Do you have any idea how stupid people would have to be to buy it?

Reply to this post

Response to Robb (Reply #117)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 08:56 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

118. I'm glad you like it, as it is true.

But slamming DUers used to be against the rules here, as you should know. Now, it's a free for all, which is fine by me, so long as it goes both ways.

Reply to this post

Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #118)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:07 PM

Robb (39,665 posts)

119. I was being facetious. It's a pile of horseshit.

It is also, perhaps incongruent to the metaphor, transparent.

Reply to this post

Response to Robb (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:14 PM

sabrina 1 (62,325 posts)

120. Well, I'm not going to argue about it, but anytime you want some evidence I'll be happy

to provide it.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:58 PM

DevonRex (22,541 posts)

124. Fuck him. He's trying to elect Republicans.

What a fucking idiot.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:44 AM

rhett o rick (55,981 posts)

129. This fight isnt between the D's and the R's as many posters here pretend.

It would certainly make life easier. And that's what we want, right? No thinking required, if there is a D behind the name then they can do no wrong. This fight is between the 1% and the 99% and many D's support the 1%.

The system is corrupted and not just the R part. Occupy recognizes this. Approx 75% of Occupy'ers claim to be independents. I bet they arent disgruntled Republicans. Whether it's president Obama's fault or not, there hasnt been any improvement in the corruption in Washington the DC in the last three years.

Some say the ship of state would sink faster if the R's were in control. Others think it doesnt matter if you cant swim.

I dont advocate voting third party, but I understand it. It's a protest vote against a rotten system. It's kind like Occupy.

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:02 AM

Rex (65,616 posts)

135. Wow...

What the hell did I miss?

Reply to this post

Response to Rex (Reply #135)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:28 AM

Cali_Democrat (30,439 posts)

137. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207206

Reply to this post

Response to Rex (Reply #135)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:31 AM

SunsetDreams (8,571 posts)

138. The previous post was a result of this

Chris Hedges: "In this year’s presidential election I will vote for a third-party candidate"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002205710

Which caused "Fuck Chris Hedges"

Which caused "Bless Chris Hedges"

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:06 AM

boppers (16,588 posts)

136. Who?

This guy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Hedges

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:02 AM

NuttyFluffers (6,811 posts)

139. blessing are so rare nowadays, how could i not rec?

Reply to this post

Response to whatchamacallit (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:51 PM

colsohlibgal (5,257 posts)

151. He's Mostly On The Money

Take way the fact that a supreme court seat or 2 may soon be open and I'd vote for the Green Party as well. Obama would not pick anyone very left if at all but the R's would go as right as they could.

To me, the big D democratic party is now about where the republican party was pre Reagan, while the republicans have moved to the crazy train. Meanwhile the 90-99% have increasingly been last to the dinner table and only get the scraps the corporate piggies let us have. It's all been enabled by misinformed and uninformed voters who are too dimwitted to know they've been played like a gong to vote against their own self interest.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)