Forum Post: Both parties are not the same thing.
Posted 12 years ago on April 19, 2012, 8:42 p.m. EST by gnomunny
(6819)
from St Louis, MO
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Neither were Chang and Eng.
lol @ siamese twins, that is a perfect analogy.
Finally, someone gets it! 18 hours in and no one else made the connection. A 'like' for you, alexrai.
did you see Reich on Jon?
Not lately. What did I miss?
I just reposted it.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/all-three-links-to-reich-and-jon-and-to-his-google/
Thanks. Will look.
runs about 20 minutes all together, I'm reading the book now
Not the old world renowned Siamese twin act? I read about that in Ripley's "Believe It or Not" decades ago and haven't heard of them since.
Yes. What a blast to the past, eh?
Indeed so.
I'm surprised nobody decided to take the bait.
I think the number of people here has gone way down, its too bad.
I hope not. Even if so, I don't think it's indicative of OWS losing strength or numbers. But, since I have your attention, what is your opinion of my comparison of our two political parties and a set of Siamese twins.? I thought it was a fair analogy. Chang and Eng were two separate individuals, with different thoughts, beliefs, different wives and offspring. Like our two parties, who have 'married' their respective interests and 'fathered' different offspring. And, whether Chang wanted to or not, so goes Eng, goes Chang. And vice versa, of course, just like the R's and D's apparently. Separate, but hopelessly conjoined.
I was going to make a closer connection by saying they also shared a circulatory system (the money) and a nervous system (the connections and lines of communication) but this wasn't the case with Chang and Eng, although many 'conjoined twins' do. I probably could've used a more appropriate example, but, Chang and Eng are the only household names.
I think your metaphor is, unfortunately, quite accurate. Both parties are bought out by the super wealthy, though both also have some good people.
[Removed]