Lenin’s Tomb
Good to see Ms. Sheehan has the sense to split from the Democrat party.
Andrew Bacevich, "I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7052502032.html
i was just about to mention the bacevich piece, but kalkin's beat me to it. makes many of the same points as sheehan.
She's said similar things before. She's pretty erratic politically. I'm waiting to see how she reacts to Obama, Kucinich, etc.
where can I join?
I was hoping that this sentiment will grow now that our vote has been used and tossed aside by the democratic party: this plutocratic system is not meant to be supportive of the working class and I am glad to see their disguise is being exposed.
What the American public thinks of Sheehan:
(Summer 2005 poll)
"Sheehan has not changed the basic equation -- or many minds at all. About eight in 10 Americans say she hasn't changed their overall opinion of the war. Among the rest, as many say they're more likely to support the war because of Sheehan (10 percent) as say they're more likely to oppose it (9 percent)."
ABC News Poll
In other words, Cindy Sheehan is unlikely to change any minds regarding the party system. Actually... regarding anything
Cindy Sheehan is unlikely to change any minds regarding the party system. Actually... regarding anything
This is a trite and unconvincing red herring. In the first instance, the poll is dug up from almost two years ago. In the second, I don't believe anyone has claimed that Sheehan would decisively alter the balance of opinion in the United States, such that people would change their mind because of one woman's experiences and protests. Who in their right mind would say 'yeah I changed my mind because Cindy sez so'? That isn't how protest and publicity works. One doesn't expect people to admit to having changed their minds about a war because of a hundred thousand strong protest, never mind one peace mom outside a ranch. It's more subtle than that: it focuses minds on the issues, raises doubts, and forces media attention on it when it's being neglected. She has symbolised public anger in a very important way, and as a consequence (as shown in that two-year-old poll) most American supported her and were critical of Bush. Sheehan has energised a morbid antiwar movement in the States on a number of occasions, bringing out massive numbers of people to demonstrate in support of her when she was camping outside Bush's ranch. Undoubtedly the wingnuts have done their best to vilify her, but it evidently hasn't worked.
Here, Sheehan is once more articulating widespread disgust and outrage with the Democrats and signposting one way to handle it. I daresay you could hold a poll tomorrow and ask if people want to leave the Dems because Cindy sez so, and no one will agree - they'll leave the Dems because they're disgusted with what the Democrats, but Sheehan is raising the argument that people should do that. There ought to be an alternative at the next Presidential election, rather than a choice between warmongering Hilary and warmongering Rudi.
Oh, and also, "The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan".
Sheehan is one of the few US anti-war activists with the reach and profile to kickstart a real debate in the movement on a political alternative to the Democrats.
And the sense of betrayal she articulates in that letter is one that will resonate with millions.
So her move is a significant one, especially in the context of Mike Davis's recent analysis in NLR of the US midterm elections - and how everything is riding on whether the US anti-war movement can establish itself as a political force independent of the Democrats.
That Mike Davis piece:
http://newleftreview.org/?page=a...ticle&
view=2651
Here's to Cindy! May she find the breath and perseverance to keep the search alive and relevant for the many millions tired of the hypocrisy and lies of the party machines. Nothing good will come from Clinton or Obama... only worse will come from the Republicans.
it will be interesting to see how this translates into an organizational move. Sheehan is on the board of Progressive Democrats of America, a group whose sole purpose is to push the Dems left. This letter seems to indicate Sheehan is done playing that game, but the real test will be organizational. Regardless of that, this statement crystallizes so perfectly the disgust so many Americans are feeling with the Democrats.
CNN did a short segment on Sheehan and all they mentioned was that she was "quitting" the protest movement. I swear that's exactly what they said, no mention of the Democrats or what she was angry about.
lenin:
you meant "moribund" above, not "morbid", didn't you? or did you?
I thank Cindy for articulating the sense of betrayal by the Democrats in Congress that's been creeping around inside me lately. She has been nothing but courageous in her attempt to bear light on the dark hypocrisies of this war--the very ones we all recognize openly now.
I support her decision to leave the Democratic Party. I, however, will not. I see an unrealistic alternative to the two-party system we endure now. People the likes of Ralph Nader rear their ugly heads only at election time and in between do nothing in the way of party building, thereby rendering any potential third party to little more than a consequential distraction.
Cindy stands steadfast in her position. She believed the new Democratic majority would as well. And now, we know we were wrong to believe.
Cynthia McKinney! She may run as a Green for Prez.
Burn your voter registration card!
Cindy has had her catalyzing event, the death of her son.
As a result she has been on the trail of unraveling the illusion that caused her son’s death. It takes time, intelligence and very strong motivation to work through all of the illusionary bullshit in scam democracy. She is well along the trail and will now confront and further shed light on the major problem in scam democracy. ALL of the politicians she has been dissipating her energy on have ALL come through the same crooked gate;
“VOTING 101 SUMMARY: Voting is the linchpin of democracy. And democracy demands transparency, not trust. Yet, there is no real transparency to the way Americans vote today. While our politicians are required to vote publicly and openly, we citizens are held to a different standard - a lower standard. We vote remotely, privately and anonymously by machine, absentee, early, and secret ballot. It's an invitation to massive and undetectable vote fraud. Things weren't always this way. Before the Civil War, voting was a completely transparent process for white men. It was only after the Civil War, as the right to vote expanded to African Americans, that the voting process itself began to recede from public view and meaningful oversight. It started with absentee voting in the 1870’s, secret ballots in the 1880’s, and voting machines in the 1890’s. Today in America, 30% of all voting is by absentee or early, 95% of all votes are machine-processed, and 100% of all ballots are secret and anonymous. For the sake of convenience and alleged voter protection, Congress has destroyed the transparency, verifiability, and integrity of America’s voting process. Making matters worse, our public voting system has been privatized and outsourced to a handful of domestic, foreign, and multi-national corporations. Just two companies, ES&S and Diebold, electronically process 80% of all votes using touchscreen machines or optical scanners. Their employees are in a perfect position to rig elections nation-wide. These two companies have close ties to the Republican Party. And evidence is mounting that elections in America have been computer programmed to prefer conservative candidates of both political parties.”
http://www.thelandesreport.com/
V...ingSecurity.htm
Excellent points on the monsterized Sheehan.
However,
A 'third way' here will simply hand the election to a united opposition, hence Clinton in '92 (w/ ~43% of the popular vote) and Bush in 00'.
Cindy Sheehan has tended to confound my expectations. I actually had the chance to interview her before Crawford, as she lives not too far away from the community radio station where I produce my program, but didn't make it a priority.
She frequently attends protest events here in Sacramento where I live.
When she became a media celebrity in 2005, I thought that she would be coopted into the system, turned into yet another innocuous liberal voice, "Support the Troops", "Bring 'em Home", without any confrontational attitude or substance.
That didn't turn out to be the case. She got my enduring respect when she visited Venezuela, and came back to the US and praised Chavez, definitely NOT the liberal line. She took a lot of flack for that, for, you know, getting off message, and she didn't back off.
She has also acknowledged the brutality of this war, as inflicted upon the Iraqis, another taboo subject, and then, with the passage of time, started holding Democrats equally accountable as Republicans, protesting Democrats who wouldn't cut war funding, like Doris Matsui in my congressional district.
She has never fallen for the liberal, self-censorship game, despite a lot of pressure to do so, and for that, she deserves a lot of respect.
its a moving piece....as is Bacevich's. Sheehan has become a figure of some PR importance....and she is, indeed, quite bright. Symbols come in various ways....pat tillman might have well have been killed to prevent his becoming a profound anti-war voice. This is just conjecture....but one wonders. Things happen in stages...gradually....and Sheehan's statement is a highly useful step toward more radical consciousness.....same as old Keith Olberman....its all good. Far from perfect socialist thinking, but still very good.
CNN did a short segment on Sheehan and all they mentioned was that she was "quitting" the protest movement. I swear that's exactly what they said, no mention of the Democrats or what she was angry about.
Also see the current outrageous story on the BBC site.
She does, also, criticise the prace movement, but because it is divided more than anything else, not because she personally has given up opposing the war.
I think I know where the confusion comes from. In the Counterpunch piece she is saying she is leaving the democratic party, but in a DailyKos article she writes she is quitting the peace movement altogether...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/20...5/28/12530/
1525
Too bad, I would say. Quitting the democratic party was a strong political signal. Quitting the peace movement (or any other form of organised dissent) basically puts an end to all politics.
Cheers
Hmm, looks like she's been burnt by the flak she's received from Democrats over the initial CounterPunch piece. Not good. But let's see if the 4 July meeting she called still happens.
Sheehan spoke in Melbourne at an anti-war conference organized by a group called Unity for Peace (with which the Australian branch of the I.S.T. was involved) about a year ago. Her politics seemed well to the left - a lot of what she had to say seemed quite 'radical', in fact. She also quoted Henry Thoreau a lot, which I thought was interesting.
I think its safe to say Sheehan is not quitting the peace movement in the broader sense. If nothing else the memory of her son will keep her in there fighting.
What she says about the Democratic Party rings true. The cosy two party duopoly needs breaking. To do even begin that process will need a whole range of electoral and institutional reforms. It's a big ask.
Cindy was in Dublin last week @ a public meeting, when asked about the democrats she said the only one worth anything was Kucinich for his anti-war stance. The rest in her words are "war profiteers".
People the likes of Ralph Nader rear their ugly heads only at election time and in between do nothing in the way of party building
I presume this is a joke. There are few more consistent examples of commited campaigners on the american left than nader. if i'd been in america in 2000 or 2004, i'd have put a lot of effort into pushing for votes for him
I would love for Cindy Sheehan to run for Pres as a Green.
"She got my enduring respect when she visited Venezuela, and came back to the US and praised Chavez, definitely NOT the liberal line. She took a lot of flack for that, for, you know, getting off message, and she didn't back off."
The Chavez that just order Venezuela's oldest TV station to shut down? Yeah, no wonder she took a lot of flak for that. The couple in the apartment downstairs from me just came to the US (legally) from Venezuela. They were hard-working, lower-middle class people, and they have repeatedly told me how terrified most of the people have become of Chavez and how fearful they are that their country is rapidly devolving into a dictatorship.
Freedom of the press is now gone in Venezuela. What next?
how terrified most of the people have become of Chavez
Curious how well he did in the elections, then, if "most" of them are "terrified".
Freedom of the press is now gone in Venezuela.
Er, no it isn't. The channel concerned continues to be available on cable. It has just lost its licence to broadcast as before, a normal occurrence in countries such as Britain.
Yeah, and there is the small matter of that television station's involvement in a coup attempt. Anyone like to hazard a guess what would have happened to Greg Dyke if he'd been involved in anything like that?
I assume there's going to be a proliferation of posts on various sites purporting to come from people who purport to know terrified Venezuelans.
yeah, that station had guys in masks coming on and encouraging ANOTHER coup.....sort of, you know, over the line for just about ANY government, anywhere.
A guy with 70% of the votes is not terrifying *most* people. What an idiotic thought.
http://www.commondreams.org/arch...007/05/29/1495/
Excellent Counterpunch response to Cindy's withdrawal from the anti-war movement:
http://www.counterpunch.com/
jaco...bs05292007.html
The couple in the apartment downstairs from me just came to the US (legally) from Venezuela.
"(legally)"... precious. god forbid you be acquainted with any of those illegals.
That Jacobs piece is rather good.
A guy with 70% of the votes is not terrifying *most* people.
Well, he terrifies most middle-to-upper bourgeoisie. And they are the only people who matter. Indeed, they are the only actual human beings.
"I would love for Cindy Sheehan to run for Pres as a Green."
The Jacobs article makes it pretty clear that this is very unlikely (much as I'd also like to see it happen). However, Elaine Brown, former head of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, has declared her candidacy for the Green Party nomination. Her website isn't exactly in campaign mode, but if she's serious, I'm planning on backing her. You can read about it here http://
www.metrodenvergreens.org..._candidate.html
Lenin said That Jacobs piece is rather good.
Hang on, just what is the story here? Cindy Sheehan's letter tells us that she's leaving the Democrats, apparently because their actions have blown away her last illusions in them.
That part of her statement is immediately preceded by a call to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this "two" party system .... "Us" doesn't suggest she's withdrawing from the anti-war movement, and indeed nothing in her letter suggests this.
So this is why I'm surprised by Ron Jacobs's piece, and Lenin's endorsement of it without further comment. Jacobs's title is "The Exit of Cindy Sheehan". Does Jacobs mean her exit from the Democrats? No. He means her (alleged) exit from "the peace movement".
This couldn't be plainer. His article opens: I have to admit that I was quite surprised when I read that Cindy Sheehan is leaving the peace movement. Where did he read this? The only evidence he cites is precisely Cindy Sheehan's letter, which says only that she will leave the Democrats and which implies that she will remain active in the peace movement.
I don't know the state of Ron Jacobs's mind today, when he wrote his article. Maybe he currently thinks (deludedly) that anyone leaving the two main parties is leaving politics altogether.
But I can be sure that this isn't what Lenin thinks. So what's the story then?
"Well, he terrifies most middle-to-upper bourgeoisie. And they are the only people who matter. Indeed, they are the only actual human beings."
This couple was not "middle-to-upper bourgeoisie".
By the way, the station that lost its license is the oldest Tv station in Venezuela.
""(legally)"... precious. god forbid you be acquainted with any of those illegals."
My point in noting that they are "legal" immigrants was to show that coming to the United States wasn't some rash, spur-of-the-moment decision on their part. They began the process when they started seeing Chavez heighten his rhetoric, consolidate his power, and, most importantly according to them, when they saw those loyal to Chavez and his party physically intimidate and assault people in their home town in order to get the votes for Chavez.
Dylan, you should keep your presumed implications to yourself. I think your comment speaks to your own prejudice on the matter. Because I point out that they are legally in the US means I would never associate with illegal immigrants? Pretty childish on you part, dylan.
"A guy with 70% of the votes is not terrifying *most* people. What an idiotic thought."
Maybe you should speak to some Venezuelans about the matter personally instead of relying on skewed media reports from leftist sources. If you did, you'd realize that yes, some do support Chavez, and some are scared shitless of him and those loyal to him.
Lbudz:
'Maybe you should speak to some Venezuelans about the matter personally instead of relying on skewed media reports from leftist sources'.
And I presume you *have* spoken to 'most Venezuelans personally'? I'm sure there's not a chance you're just relying on skewed word-of-mouth reports from anti-Chavista ex-pats.
Chavez wins election after election with big majorities, elections which international observers have consistently reported as being up to standard. It seems pretty clear that he has a substantial base of popular support.
Meanwhile, you can keep on lamenting the partial closure of Military Coup T.V.. Demonstrates your own democratic credentials perfectly.
By the way, the station that lost its license is the oldest Tv station in Venezuela.
That's irrelevant.
It's advocated for the overthrow of a democratically elected leader. What part of that do you not understand?
Ah, but you know this guy next door....
ldubz....actually my son works in Venezuala.....or did until a month ago.
and that station was indeed the oldest....and involved itself in a coup....and repeatedly aired statements asking for another coup.....and guys in crappy black masks were speaking about rising up and violent overthrow. Chavez has been pretty patient....and has never limited free speech. He closed down a rabidly right wing station owned by one of the very richest families in the country.
per Chavez and the TV station....
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/...nt/view/742/35/
Ldubz said: Maybe you should speak to some Venezuelans about the matter personally instead of relying on skewed media reports from leftist sources. If you did, you'd realize that yes, some do support Chavez, and some are scared shitless of him and those loyal to him.
Ldubz, enough of this bollocks. The fact that "some are scared shitless of him and those loyal to him" isn't some kind of deft counter-argument on your part - on the contrary, it's a matter for celebration here at Lenin's Tomb.
The Venezuelans you're talking about are either scared at the prospect (unfortunately by no means imminent) of losing their ill-gotten wealth, or they're the middle-class dupes of these people. We can remember how Allende failed to make these groups of people "scared shitless", and we can remember the consequences (like a sports stadium full of corpses, in case you have trouble remembering this kind of thing, Lbudz).
At the Cambridge Union (posh debating club, not a trade union) they loved doing this kind of thing. For instance, they'd get the offspring of some wealthy Pakistani family to say how overjoyed Pakistanis were to have the strong hand of a military dictator like Musharraf in control again. All the hand-wringing liberals would be paralysed, since they don't have any class-based understanding of society. The organisers of the debate knew this well, which is why they liked the tactic. You also like the tactic, Lbudz.
I've a recommendation for you, Lbudz: why don't you write back next time under the name "shit-scared Venezuelan". If you take the trouble to change IP address that'll really have us all fooled. Go on.
Dylan, you should keep your presumed implications to yourself. I think your comment speaks to your own prejudice on the matter. Because I point out that they are legally in the US means I would never associate with illegal immigrants? Pretty childish on you part, dylan.
They why on earth did you bring up their legal status? It had nothing to do with your point. You were just needlessly reassuring us that your friends aren't one of those immigrant families who are breaking the law.
What, you can't even mention an immigrant without assuring us of their status, apropos of nothing? By your account, these folks were fleeing for their lives, so why do you feel the need to justify how they got here?
babeuf--
I don't know the state of Ron Jacobs's mind today, when he wrote his article. Maybe he currently thinks (deludedly) that anyone leaving the two main parties is leaving politics altogether.
Jacobs is referring to this piece, in which Cindy Sheehan does discuss her desire to step back from anti-war activism.
My point in noting that they are "legal" immigrants was to show that coming to the United States wasn't some rash, spur-of-the-moment decision on their part.
Ldubz -- Before you say it, yeah I did respond to you without fully reading your rationalization here. Frankly I think my assumption makes a lot more sense than your explanation, but I don't care, fine, you're right, your intentions were pure. You're still wrong about Venezuela, and I'm glad everyone else already handed you your ass on a plate because it's 7pm and I'm leaving work =P
dylan, thanks for clearing that up. Certainly Sheehan sounds much more demoralised in the second letter than in the first.
It sounds like an instant reaction to attacks from other activists who will always put their loyalty to the Democrats before their opposition to the war.
Concretely, she says she's selling Camp Casey, and will cease to act as the "face" of the anti-war movement in the U.S. Beyond that, she's ambiguous about what she'll be doing (presumably because she doesn't know yet).
I suppose we would have to say that revolutionary socialist politics begins at the point where Cindy Sheehan left off, but that needn't detract from her achievements, or from the great courage and intelligence that she's shown.
I never understood the fuss over Sheehan.
Her son died a war criminal fighting the resistance in Fallujah.
Following which she suddenly had the epiphany that the war couldn't be won (not that it was actually morally wrong).
Intelligent people don't have to have a kid die to make principled judgments on wars. Do they?
Following which she suddenly had the epiphany that the war couldn't be won (not that it was actually morally wrong).
This is not correct. Unlike a lot of liberal critics of the war, Sheehan never couches her opposition to the occupation of Iraq in utilitarian terms. She's one of the few people in the anti-war movement who consisently talks about the Iraqi dead as well as the American dead and I once saw her booed at a "peace rally" for daring to mention that the Iraqi resistence fighters are only soldiers fighting for their country, not terrorists.
it wasnt a rash decision? oh dear, and we often hear about how people desperately leave Cuba on makeshift rafts as the proof of cubas ultimate evil, so what do we have here? some people immigrating in the usual sense and now its proof that dictatorship is nigh? these people are seriously reaching. Ill say what is often said in relation to Cuba, what about the millions who stay?
frazzled that seems to me the definition of ultra-leftism. Should we oppose Iraq Veterans Against the War because it is made up of "war criminals?" Sheehan is a lightning rod for average Americans' discontent with the war. In the summer of 2005 there were vigils all over the country thanks in part to her organizing, and it was the first stirrings of a national antiwar movement since the Kerry campaign destroyed it in 2004. Because of her status in the movement, what she does influences how other folks are going to think. As Marxists, it seems a rather simple question. Where is the class at? For working folks against the war, Sheehan has been someone they can point to who is making the antiwar arguments on a national level.
If we want to get pretentious about it, we can say Sheehan functioned something like an organic intellectual in the sense Gramsci described. While your everyday person on the street might not have all the arguments to cut through the pro-war shit coming in from the media every day, they could point to Sheehan and say "I may not have all the answers, but she lost a son in the war and if she's against the war that must really mean something."
Point is, Sheehan is important for people who are thinking about how to end the war. Her leaving the movement matters.
Crap, frazzled. Sheehan has been consistent in pushing Iraqi lives to the forefront in her arguments, and viewing every US soldier as intrinsically a war criminal (and cheering their deaths) involves strategic as well as moral idiocy.
http://www.sirnosir.com/
home_abo...about_film.html
OK, frazzled, let's have the revolution tomorrow. You lead, and I'm sure all your "intelligent people" will follow. Good luck!
Or would you sooner just moralise from the sidelines?
If you want to be morally outraged, then blame the U.S. ruling class, past and present, for destroying fighting unions, for filling the heads of working-class kids with patriotic garbage, and for excluding from the classrooms, newspapers and airwaves any information about the death and destruction their leaders are inflicting around the globe.
But don't stand wagging your finger at the products of that system when they fail to value Iraqi lives as much as American lives. If anything is going to change, it will have to involve just such people, and even some of the people who are currently following orders to commit atrocities against Iraqis. That's what it took before the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam.
The only way ruling-class ideas are undermined is through bitter experience. Sheehan has lived out this bitter experience in front of millions of Americans. When the "anybody but Bush" crowd duped and demoralised the anti-war movement, Sheehan's example managed to get many back on the streets, and many more to change their ideas on the war.
Sure, we would have preferred it if the mother of a dead Iraqi child had been able to do what Sheehan did. Or even better, the mother of a dead Iraqi resistance fighter. Or best of all, we would have liked a militant mass movement that didn't need a figurehead like Sheehan. But none of these were around at the time.
Sheehan was able to address many American workers at the point where they were - not at some point two miles down the road where we'd like to see them in the future. And once she got in this position, instead of giving in and sowing the illusions the Democrats wanted her to sow, she held her ground, and even hardened her position.
Compare that with those trojan-horse would-be saints of the drop-the-debt/anti-G8 movement, Bono and Geldof - notice the difference?
"Maybe you should speak to some Venezuelans about the matter personally instead of relying on skewed media reports from leftist sources."
Actually its right-wing opposition aligned Datanalisis. As Angus Reid shows Chavez had a 64.7 aproval rating as of last month.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/...em/itemID/
15556
can i just say, all the answers to frazzled are really excellent.
espeically pauly. !!
Here's an article on the Venezuelan TV station closing:
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/...g/
cm260507.html
Speaking as an American worker who took two weeks of vacation to run down to Crawford Texas from Seattle in Aug 2005, Cindy is important to the antiwar movement in the US.
I heard her on Democracy Now this a.m. (Wednesday May 30) and she will definitely be back. Not as a Green--which is good b/c they've got problems still--at least locally here.
She started off with solidarity statements not only for the people of Iraq, but for Palestinians.
I think she is leading as she did before--she's dumped the Dems. This morning, she also mentioned a viable third party in the U.S.
She'll be back.
"They why on earth did you bring up their legal status? It had nothing to do with your point. You were just needlessly reassuring us that your friends aren't one of those immigrant families who are breaking the law."
It was relevant, and I explained it above. Pay attention. I could care less if immigrant families break the law or not. The fact you insist on imputing this intent onto my statement speaks volumes about how ignorant and judgmental you are on the subject. You're just exercising your own little brand of bigotry by making assumptions which you clearly haven't though out. You're reacting because you disagree with my view of Chavez. That's pretty childish, dylan.
Looks like Globovision is next!
Please, by all means, keep supporting people like Chavez. It really does wonders for your movement's credibility. You guys are your own worst enemy. Love it.
yawn, now youre being very childish, perhaps I better rephrase that, youre the one being childish, dylan wasnt. Yes by all means we will, this man has done a great deal of good for his people and the people of other countries, it doesnt bother me to support that at all.
Ldubz, every Venezuelan I've personally spoken to has been in agreement that Chavez has been far too lenient on the leaders of the failed coup. His opposition openly admitted on national television to planning a military operation to overthrow the elected leader of a democratic state, and Chavez has yet to even throw them in jail. Some totalitarian.
"Please, by all means, keep supporting people like Chavez. It really does wonders for your movement's credibility."
What forum do you think this is, man? Did you happen to read the name of the blog or anything in it? Get ahold of yourself.
I love right wingers who get all defensive and say that the left is practicing bigotry when we judge them. It's adorable.
As for our credibility, I must say we're not terribly keen on impressing bourgy TV station owners who like to foment coups in their spare time. Chavez is part of the 'axis of hope,' as Mr. Ali puts it, and people from the Bronx to Iran identify with his giving Bush the one finger salute. That's who we'd like to have some credibility with.
The only interesting thing about Mr. dubz is that he began by trying to hijack the thread, but inadvertently revealed that he was anti-immigrant (forgetting the audience he was speaking for) and then came out sparring as a "troll" when called out on it.
I also find it interesting that the British Right are so obsessively anti-Chavez, if the Times is anything to go by (unfortunately our local rag smears its pages with a lot of their sewage). What are they afraid of? That the Argentinians will take back the Falklands, or something?
"The only interesting thing about Mr. dubz is that he began by trying to hijack the thread, but inadvertently revealed that he was anti-immigrant (forgetting the audience he was speaking for) and then came out sparring as a "troll" when called out on it."
So now I'm anti-immigrant? That's hilarious, since I'm an immigrant and support anyone who wants to emigrate to American by whatever means. I thought this forum might actually be worth reading. Based on your idiotic comments and unsupported allegations, I was very wrong.
Commenting by HaloScan
