Bless Chris Hedges!

[whatchamacallit]

Bless him for keeping it real.

[MineralMan]

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

Maybe.

[msanthrope]

3. Damn. Beat me to it. nt

[sabrina 1]

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.

[MineralMan]

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

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

[MinervaX]

45. Leaving death, destruction and misery in their wake

[MineralMan]

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

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

[sabrina 1]

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.

[MineralMan]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[xiamiam]

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

[SunsetDreams]

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.

[Marr]

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.

[msanthrope]

2. Bless his heart. nt

[MineralMan]

13. I learned all that from my grandmother,

who was nobody's fool, bless her heart.

[msanthrope]

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.

[Are_grits_groceries]

56. And she would take you out

for using 'bless her heart' on her.

[MineralMan]

108. Ah, she died these 40 years ago.

She'd have laughed, as she often did.

[JoePhilly]

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

What's the date for that?

[BlueCaliDem]

8. Heh

I love your enthusiasm.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

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

Sounds familiar around these parts.

[JoePhilly]

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.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

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.

[JoePhilly]

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

[redqueen]

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.

[JoePhilly]

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

But one won't just appear out of nowhere.

[redqueen]

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?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

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.

[redqueen]

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.

[zappaman]

92. well said!

[EFerrari]

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

[MuseRider]

7. Agreed. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

122. Exactly!

[Robb]

6. "When keeping it real goes wrong."

[whatchamacallit]

9. Goes wrong

for the status quo.

[Scurrilous]

29. Heh.

Time for some Dave Chappelle:

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

[one_voice]

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

[ProSense]

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.

[BlueCaliDem]

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.

[MinervaX]

46. LOL

[ProSense]

64. I'm

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

[sabrina 1]

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.

[RZM]

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).

[whatchamacallit]

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

leaves little doubt.

[girl gone mad]

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

[sabrina 1]

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.

[RZM]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Dragonfli]

131. Thank you....

[sabrina 1]

132. Hi Dragonfli,

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

[cpwm17]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Indeed.

[gratuitous]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Pisces]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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

[CakeGrrl]

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

[BlueCaliDem]

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?

[Erose999]

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.

[_ed_]

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.

[zappaman]

44. strawman argument nt

[EFerrari]

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

[_ed_]

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.

[CakeGrrl]

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?

[_ed_]

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?

[dionysus]

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

[_ed_]

40. Nice straw man argument

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

[Uncle Joe]

22. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, whatchamacallit.

[Hugabear]

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.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Problem for you is

nowhere in my post was that done. Sorry.

[Union Scribe]

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.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

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

[sabrina 1]

110. Et tu, Thomas Jefferson?

[zappaman]

33. Fuck Chris Hedges

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

[_ed_]

36. Fuck Straw Man Arguments

.

[whatchamacallit]

37. There's a difference

but it's a matter of degrees...

[zappaman]

41. so are you advocating voting 3rd party?

Like Nobel-prize winning/asshole Chirs Hedges is?

[whatchamacallit]

47. What are you babbling about?

[zappaman]

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.

[whatchamacallit]

55. Advocating?

no. Wishing?...

[zappaman]

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?

[whatchamacallit]

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

so stop asking. Simple enough?

[zappaman]

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?

[progressoid]

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.

[zappaman]

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

You?

ETA: to fix an unbelievable Freudian slip!

[Union Scribe]

144. Where do you get off demanding everyone

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

[whatchamacallit]

125. Thanks

that sums up nicely how I feel about it.

[Warren DeMontague]

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

right?

[whatchamacallit]

62. Where did I do that?

[Warren DeMontague]

65. yes or no?

[EFerrari]

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

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[EFerrari]

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

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Union Scribe]

145. Give other posters a fucking break.

Then read your sig line and look in the mirror.

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[SidDithers]

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

Sid

[zappaman]

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

but it's pretty obvious.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

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!!!

[dionysus]

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?

[whatchamacallit]

107. Lol! Keep trying.

[SidDithers]

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

Sid

[sabrina 1]

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!

[SidDithers]

52. +1...nt

Sid

[_ed_]

38. "Acolytes"

You make me laugh

[SidDithers]

49. ROFL...

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



Sid

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[EFerrari]

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.

[Warren DeMontague]

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

[EFerrari]

78. Who can argue with that kind of intellect?

LMAO

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[progressoid]

104. a paid GOP stooge?

Gotta link to that or is it just hyperbole Monday?

[Warren DeMontague]

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

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Warren DeMontague]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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.

[TheKentuckian]

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.

[sabrina 1]

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

[TheKentuckian]

150. I made the same error.

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

[woo me with science]

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

Well said.

[Marr]

141. You were urging compassion for the mentally incapacitated?

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

[Warren DeMontague]

142. Hurr

Right back at'cha, Chief.

[zappaman]

77. Nah, he was talking about this one.

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

[EFerrari]

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

So what?

[zappaman]

81. so what?

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

[EFerrari]

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.

[zappaman]

84. Cool.

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

[Bluenorthwest]

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.

[zappaman]

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?

[limpyhobbler]

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.

[SpartanDem]

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.

[zappaman]

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)

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Robb]

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?

[sabrina 1]

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.

[Robb]

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

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

[sabrina 1]

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

to provide it.

[DevonRex]

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

What a fucking idiot.

[rhett o rick]

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.

[Rex]

135. Wow...

What the hell did I miss?

[Cali_Democrat]

137. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002207206

[SunsetDreams]

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"

[boppers]

136. Who?

This guy?

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

[NuttyFluffers]

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

[colsohlibgal]

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.