You have used the word "Oil" as have a few us of in this thread. I think we have reached the maximum allowed use of this word as it is generally not allowed in any discussions about foreign or domestic policy. Although it is the overriding factor that got us into Iraq and it drives most of the geo-political problems today mentioning the very word is taboo.

So let’s get this out of our system now… Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil Oil… whew… that felt good.

Although McCain's policy proposals are disastrous and could literally result in the collapse of American prosperity, prestige, and democracy if he is elected, this isn't Hitler versus Stalin.

True.

More to the point, circumstances are such that the collapse of American prosperity is inevitable. For millions of Americans, there is no prosperity even now, and the prospect of collapse for the rest of us isn't wholly relevant.

Your task, therefore, is to choose the candidate best suited to mitigate and reverse the effects of that collapse. For a variety of reasons for which there is clear evidence, that choice is Obama, and not McCain, and not Nader.

The idea that both major candidates are so "evil" that neither can be chosen over the other is not accurate.

That is a logical certainty, in view of my two posts previous. It is not possible to logically disprove my conclusion along the same lines.

Assuming the goals are to maximize prosperity, even in the face of economic collapse, and to maximize democracy, even in the face of totalitarianism, the only logical choice is the lesser of two evils.

The circumstances of political triage necessarily assert that no alternative at all is possible.

The longer answer is that I don't accept the premise of the entire article; the presumption that the U.S. has been systematically lawless.

Do you deny the facts as Glenn laid them out?

Can you provide counter-examples that void the ones he cites?

If you can, please do so. I'm becoming increasingly desperate for evidence my country is still one to take pride in.

Oh, and concerning your point about "movement building"? Yes, those are all goals we can and should seek to organize around and agitate for.

But reality doesn't pause while we do so, and like it or not the trend lines I mentioned earlier aren't going to stop moving downwards unless we stop them with the avenues presently available.

Who is being illogical?

You are. You've avoided my argument.

Because anyone who chooses the loser in an election automatically has chosen the winner.

You've intentionally misrepresented a valid argument to achieve a contradiction. In short, you're lying, pub.

illogical is the spoiler tag.

You're assuming Nader can win. That's not just dishonest, it's obtusely dishonest.

You, sir, are a Republican, and no Naderite. A Naderite could not be so blatantly dishonest.

Consider yourself exposed and discredited, neocon.

It's that simple. Corporations are now more powerful than Congress, which had already rolled over for the president. Which party in control of Congress has become obviously, tragically irrelevant.

It's to be expected that a president and corporations will try to push the envelope of their power. It's not expected that Congress will surrender without a fight, but that's exactly what's happened. Legislators have made themselves obsolete except as a rubber stamp for laws written by the president and corporations.

The press has allowed Congress to do this, and so has abandoned its role as the fourth branch of government. Imagine: despite what the Constitution says about Congress and the press, we no longer have, in effect, a Congress or press.

It's that simple: when it comes to being the beacon of liberty, Congress and journalism have made us the laughing stock of the world.

Obama is a corporate tool on all of those issues, which he won't touch.

Because he can't, as a result of the circumstances long contrived by the radical right, regardless of his preferences otherwise.

Obama's only successful approach is to attempt to mitigate the situation favorably, in view of the negative political realities, and to choose the lesser over the greater evil himself where possible.

Realistically, Nader could do no differently if he were to win.

What about the greater movement on a whole range of issues? Real "economic justice"? World de-militarization? International criminal justice, for the Bush Administration? Palestinians' Right of Return? The Global Environmental Crisis? Obama is a corporate tool on all of those issues, which he won't touch.

Why not begin now to develop are meaningful political party devoted to those issues?

"Begin now"????

You really are a republican tool. You expose your ignorance on the third party choices and this is the exact reason I come here to devalue your input. We have started our party building long ago.

I assure you, by "devaluing your input" I mean that I would rather have any voter on this board vote Obama than be swayed by you.

Your support of the Green Party is but a sign that we are succeeding in our long-standing attempts at building a "meaningful political party devoted to those issues." For the republicans to be AS OPEN as you are being about pushing the democrats out of their own voting block is proof that we are becoming more and more meaningful as the policies that we have espoused become more and more endangered by the two-party corporation. Many of the people on this board and elsewhere already argue against the two party ruling elite. I understand their strategy: move a successful candidate to the left. That's ok. I support that by doing what I do, whether they realize that or not.

Your only motivation is to get republicans elected. That is not acceptable to me as I find their hypocrisy far more repugnant than the democrats' inaction.

Hypocrisy, you ask? Let's see:

-biggest deficit since Reagan

-curtailing of privacy

-destroying habeus corpus

-imperial behavior (both at home and abroad)

I am sure that is only the beginning. I have other work to do...