>
> --- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> > Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >
> > >Besides, as Ted argues, both arguments can't be
> > true at the same time:
> > >the multitude are ready to "take it over" and the
> > multitude must vote
> > >for Anybody But Bush ("or else"). If the multitude
> > were ready to "take
> > >it over," why bother electing a Democrat?
> >
> > You've always struck me as very smart. Why do you
> > refuse to think
> > about two things at once?
>
>
> EXACTLY!!!! It would be wrong to view voting for the
> Democratic Party as a strategy; however, as a tactic,
> as a chance to pick the lesser of two evils, I think
> it is valid.
>
According this (long, but apparently much informed) article by M.C. Ruppert, a democrat president after Dubya is already envisaged by power elites (Soros is an example), at least because it will be more suitable to keep their businesses going (Iraq occupation included) with a (slightly) increased popular acceptance. So, it is dubious who is the lesser evil. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html
-- Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor: Erbe e tisane di primissima qualità. Inoltre 1800 articoli erboristici. Tutti a portata di un click !
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=1309&d=15-11