Al Giordano spells out another reason why we don't want a Clinton in charge of foreign policy:
For more than a week prior to the massacre, non-governmental organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, had warned the US State Department of the impending atrocity. But the deal had already been struck with the Mexican regime that in exchange for its acquiescence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US would turn a blind eye to all matters of human rights in Mexican territory...
4 comments:
The fix is in, in more ways than one—it looks like Obama is sending up trial balloons about keeping Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy in place:
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSTRE4AM1F120081123
And on the talking-head news shows this morning, CNBC's Erin Burnette opined that Wall Street would take a dim view of any massive public-works and infrastructure-building program as a means of stimulating the economy (!!), but that Obama's stated goal of creating 2.5 million new jobs in the next two years was actually quite modest compared to what Wall Street feared he would do, and that this likely reflected the input of his economic advisors.
So glad I didn't bother to vote this year.
Obama disappointed me from the moment I heard that icky Austan Goolsbee open his big mouth to "reassure" Canadians about NAFTA. Or, as I like to call it, Da Shafta. Because that's what we all got out of it, except of course those lucky enough to occupy the highest echelons of corporate empire...
"So glad I didn't bother to vote this year."
Yeah, that'll show'em!
"Yeah, that'll show'em!"
Jesus, are you living in a dream world.
Obviously, it wasn't intended to "show'em." I simply have no interest in casting any more meaningless votes in this revolting, mangy fake of a "democratic" electoral system, for the reasons spelled out in this article by Michael Hudson ("The Obama Letdown") on Counterpunch today:
http://counterpunch.com/
But if it still works for you, Anon, knock yourself out ... that'll show me!
Post a Comment