Hillary's Hawkish, Pro-Bush-McCain Defense Stands Prove she is a Proud Member of the Power Elite.

[Chasing Dreams]

I've had this quote in my tag line for a while, but it bears repeating on what I thought was the DEMOCRATIC underground:

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

If you are a Democrat, please honestly answer the following questions:

1. Do you believe that increased defense spending and the accelerating power of the military industrial complex (MIC) is responsible for America's economic and social decline?

2. Which candidate, Clinton or Obama, is more likely to perpetuate the MIC if elected?

3. Is the retention -- even growth -- of American military power abroad something you want to support?

4. What is most important in this election: (a) electing a woman president, (b) electing an African American president, or (c) doing everything we can to turn back the fascist trifecta of the MIC, MSM, and Big Oil?

I would have loved to have had Al Gore or John Edwards as our candidate. That won't happen. I don't know if Obama will have the strength to truly take on the corporate devils. But I have absolutely no doubt, especially after the events of the last several days, that a Hillary Clinton victory will be cheered by the Power Elite.

A vote for Hillary is, by MLK's thoughtful definition, a vote for spiritual doom.

[Jamastiene]

1. So, if you capitalize a bunch of words, does that make them more

true?

[Chasing Dreams]

3. That is a Nixon-like, "non-denial" denial.

You can't honestly answer the questions, can you?

[TheZug]

2. Right. She's not a Democrat. She's a dynastic imperialist.

She'll toss a few trinkets to pacify her supporters who are too foolish to see what's going on, but that's it.

You're right--Obama, something of an unknown quantity. Hillary, not unknown. Pure imperialist.

[Chasing Dreams]

4. Your definition of Hillary, Dynastic Imperialist, is outstanding.

From Wikipedia:

Dynasty: "A dynasty is a succession of rulers who belong to the same family for generations. A dynasty is also often called a "house", e.g. the House of Saud or House of Habsburg. In the histories of Europe, much of Asia and some of Africa, ruling and noble houses have usually been patrilineal; inheritance and kinship being predominantly viewed and legally calculated through descent from a common ancestor in the male line. Often, however, if the male lineage died out, descendants through females (and sometimes the females themselves) were recognized as entitled to inherit the dynasty's realms and/or wealth."

Imperialism: "Imperialism has two meanings, one describing an action and the other describing an attitude. Most commonly it is understood in relation to Empire building, as the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political domination of other nations."

Vote for Hillary to continue the American Dynasty: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

[IndianaGreen]

7. Perhaps we need a French Revolution to get rid of our royal families

Off with their heads!

[laconicsax]

5. My answers:

1. Only in part. Deregulation and appointing incompetent cronies has played a big part as well.
2. Both. They've said as much. Clinton voted yes on Kyl/Lieberman and said that she didn't want to rule out any options, including the nuclear option. She has also intends to expand the miltary and buy them all new toys. link Obama played along with beating the drums to war against Iran and kept saying that all options, including a nuclear option were no the table. He also intends to expand the military and buy them all new toys. link
3. Not particularly
4. C, duh.

A vote for either is, by MLK's thoughtful definition, a vote for spiritual doom.

[Chasing Dreams]

8. You are wrong about Obama's support for the MIC

Please listen to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs

Now do you see that a vote for Hillary is worse than a vote for Obama?

[laconicsax]

10. Sorry, I'm not wrong.

The three points he made in your clip there are that he won't militarize space, he'll eliminate wasteful spending, and he'll eliminate nuclear arms. That's nice, but it refute my point. His position is that he'll increase the size of the Army by 65 thousand, the Marines by 27 thousand, and will buy all new equipment for the military as a whole.

Once again, he's going to expand the military (increases defense spending) and buy them all new toys (increases defense spending).

Clinton is definitely more hawkish and arguably worse on this subject, but that doesn't make Obama a great choice. This is exactly why neither gets my vote unless it's November and one of them is the nominee.

This video is a great example of what I mean. It may be related, but it doesn't refute my point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2b1D5w82yU

[Athelwulf]

6. Thank you for posting this thread.

I really dislike both Clinton and Obama. In Oregon's primary, I'll vote for Mike Gravel. In the election proper, there's a slight (slight) possibility I will look at Nader or whoever the Socialist Party USA is offering. That said, I'll answer your questions.

1. I think the named problems, combined with the Republicans' idea that a budget deficit is a good thing, have been very major factors, at the very least.

2. It's a tough call, but I suppose Clinton is more likely.

3. Not at all! That's why I'm defiantly supporting Gravel. There is no way of justifying the fact that we spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. I would almost expect a Republican to support such a senseless thing, but for a Democrat to do the same, when he should instead be opposed to what the Republican would do, is appalling. I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm also an independent thinker. If the Democrats betray America in true Republican fashion, they lose my support.

4. Long answer: We should pay no mind at all to the physical attributes of our presidential candidates. I just want someone who will do the job we're employing them to do. Short answer: C.

[Yavin4]

9. My Answers to Your Questions

1. Do you believe that increased defense spending and the accelerating power of the military industrial complex (MIC) is responsible for America's economic and social decline?

Yes. To spend $600 billion a year on defense (a figure that does not include the Iraq war costs) is ludicrous esp. since no one is even trying to attack us.

2. Which candidate, Clinton or Obama, is more likely to perpetuate the MIC if elected?

Honestly, probably neither. However, Obama's candidacy helps progressives to get elected across the nation because he fires up young voters. You cannot overturn the MIC in one presidential term or even two terms. It will take a generation or so to do it, but Obama is more likely to start the process over Clinton.


3. Is the retention -- even growth -- of American military power abroad something you want to support?

America cannot afford to be the world's policeman. We simply do not have the dominant economy in order to do it. We are bankrupt.


4. What is most important in this election: (a) electing a woman president, (b) electing an African American president, or (c) doing everything we can to turn back the fascist trifecta of the MIC, MSM, and Big Oil?

Answer is "c", and we will need more than president to do it. We will need a strong, proactive Congress as well. It's not about one politician. It's about a movement. It's about the future.