Forum Post: Climate change deniers and third party supporters; is there any difference really?
Posted 12 years ago on Aug. 2, 2012, 8:23 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8342)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many on the site say there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans; they say we should support third party candidates.
Many also say that climate change is a hoax that man cannot change the climate.
When faced with the fact in a given race that either the R or the D will win, and if you want your voice heard you better figure out which one you want, or your vote won’t matter, they say I don’t care I won’t support …..(whatever).
When you tell a climate change denier that CO2 is increasing and CO2 raises temperature and people are putting CO2 in the air and we should stop or at least slow down, they say I don’t care, freedom is more important …(or whatever).
Nether of these people will be persuaded by facts, so is there really any difference between climate change deniers and third party supporters, well not enough for sure.
Normally I enjoy what you post factsrfun, but this thread is an epic fail. You are attempting to link two issues that are as different as night and day and show equivalence. It's a fail in logic.
Worse it's a lame attempt at smearing people who don't agree with you ideologically, right out of the political dirty books pages. There is no difference between what you have posted and what the Heartland Institute caught flack on when they put up their billboard equating believers in AGW with the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. The billboard caption was: "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" ...they failed as well.
Being a proponent of AGW indicates an understanding of objective science. The laws of science happen whether we believe in them or not. Gravity will continue its pull on an object towards the center of another's mass whether we are there to see it or not. In the same way, triatomic molecules are transparent to light in the visible spectrum but will absorb/emit thermal energy that is reflected from the earths surface, causing lower atmospheric warming. Its a measurable, testable, and repeatable phenomena.
Political Science is an oxymoron. There are no truths in politics and all so called facts and conclusions are subjective in nature. People blatantly lie and have free will which means that they generally do not follow strict patterns that can be accurately predicted. A belief in any political doctrine is not reached through objective reasoning and logic but belief in the whatever biased sources one is presented with, more of an emotional choice of what they feel appeals to them by what is projected by media.
Thus if I feel that there is no difference between the two parties, that is my personal belief and I have my reasons for feeling so. That you do not is your personal belief. Either choice is valid.
Personally I feel our votes are wasted and the system can not be changed from within, both parties all parties within the system are corrupt, or will be in short time due to the nature or our money based political machine.
Stop the smear campaign and dirty political maneuvering to push your particular agenda.
Political science is not called a science because there are laws attached to politics. It's called a science because the scientific method is used to draw conclusions. The courses are mainly, political history, economics, philosophy and statistical analysis. With this said, i do agree with you. The study of politics should probably be could political analysis.
So do you believe in global warming?
Absolutely. It's not a matter of belief, but the summation of over 100 years of research, experimentation, and observations.
Hard to believe with all the evidence that people don't believe it. But I guess it is really republicans strategy to serve the fossil fuel industry. So they have denied and spread doubt among their party members.
Disgusting
Campaign-funding-miniscule-compared-to-government
thanks
I visited the link and I'm not sure how it relates to what you highlighted from my post. Maybe you could expand upon it?
linking campaign funding to government spending
Tell the parents in Newtown there is no difference between those that support stronger gun control and those that oppose it. Keep spreading the Green Party Lies and like all political hacks before you, your efforts will be a gift to the 1%.
hi facts
So you haven't stopped checking in, good to see, too bad how ego has taken over the site/OWS it seems to have become much more about being heard rather that trying to get something done. Try as I might I can find no one to explain to me how we make things better without getting rid of Republicans yet many on the site still are unwilling to put forth any effort on that front, so I fear the wide spread movement to change the economic condition is dying from the Disease of Conceit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7racoe9LuM
small groups that have money determine the jobs and how the work force will be treated .
I don't support the republicans. I can't support the democrats both sets answer to the aristocrats both go to war
That's the difference between us Matt you're OK with Republicans winning, I'm not, I know you got your reasons, and I got mine
the real question is do you support the concept that the people have a right to choose, Priest don't marry and in theory don't have sex, they can take comfort that they don't add to population, that's mostly likely a good thing, of course if everyone took that path....
of course Republicans rejoice and start wars no matter how they win the seat, some are OK with that, some aren't, I'm not
[Removed]
There is only one truth in politics.... 'follow the money'. Call bullshit all you want. It is easy to do so without an explanation... isn't it.
Running out of time! Oh that's the point, right? Waste our time!
Whatever works, right?
Get out the Vote, People!! Because the Con shills and plants don't want you to!!!
[Removed]
Dissect away.
[Removed]
And if Voting for one party over another didn't matter, then Big $ wouldn't spend one god damn Citizens United dime on these elections!
Don't feed the trolls!!
Get Out the VOTE!!!
If it were true, that because people are liars their behavior is not predictable, the political campaigns would not spend such tremendous amounts accumulating data on the voting public. If it were true, that human behavior is not predictable, then the advertising industry would not spend tremendous sums developing sales stratagems designed to mold behavior and alter spending and consumption habits to suit their needs. If human behavior were not predictable, we would not understand both how and why a magicians slight of hand actually works, and there might then be no magicians at all . . .
All of the above are partial truths. Political campaigns spend an a great deal of time on data collection and polls... its not 100% reliable, ask any campaign manager.
The advertising industry spends billions... oops just saw a Coke commercial, I'm not running to my fridge to get one.... The best they can hope for is brand recognition.
Magicians... Really?
Mr. Lincoln sums it up much better than I could:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." ~ A. L.
Thank you!!
We have some pretty bight RepubliCon shills and plants!!
[Removed]
Guess we just have to:
[Removed]
Yes, the biggest and worst lies always metastasize an innocent kernel of truth.
Yes, suppression in any way possible, like in 2010.
What I can't understand is how so many don't see the entire RepubliCon Cult blatantly standing on Obama's gardening hose?
Get out the Vote, People!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
[Removed]
Fox Lies, MSM, RW Hate Speech Radio 24/7/365/every city! Not difficult at all!
But yes, all these, and numb-skull petulance, all at once.
Get Out the VOTE!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
[Removed]
Citizens United $
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
I will ask you the question, I ask in this circumstance.
Can you show me the 900+ bills passed by Dems that limit women's rights?
Can you show me the Dem that has thrown a hissy fit over hearing the word vagina, or even menstrual.
Can you show me the Dem that want's to repeal the ADA?
I too, distrust all governments, but I also get tired of the lies perped against it.
Lies are never truly useful. No matter how much you want them to be.
I wish lies were never truly useful. I wonder what you think I want?
What do you want? Do you deny climate change?
Climate change seems clear to me. I know you want everyone to vote for dems because you believe that's the best idea, I don't give a shit who gets annointed.
I agree agitation is not enough! What else do YOU think we need to do?
Figure out how to send the SOB's a strong message without being violent.
How about protest FOR something! I like the agenda Bernie Sanders agitate FOR.
Not you? Ever hear of him?
Bernie Sanders is a hero to me. I ok agitation but don't believe it's enough for what we need right now
Cool. I am anti republican because all our problems have their roots in conservative policies.
Do you think there is nothing we can do politically?
Yes, we can rebel against both corporate owned parties, and not just the one that's worse.
OK! I'm with you.
Solidarity!
I know you can't answer these question.
What you want is irrelevant.
I also know you stated a lie, which you could not defend.
[Removed]
So that many will continue to accept the charade. We could discuss issues again and conclude that there are differences between dems and repubs. The results that we see from the many debates will disappoint us and close scrutiny would reveal that both parties did their job. The appearance of trying to govern and blaming political realities when the other party succeeds in preventing important policies is just a show.
[Removed]
We agree on the theater and also on the present era. I also prefer the dems as actors for many of the roles they play, such as terrorism, sexual behavior, etc.
Of the 5 bullet points you posted, the first one predominates the others. This is why I'm on this forum, the amount of power and influence by corporate interests over government. I do not believe it can be overstated and am continually frustrated with distractions from this subject. Nothing else worthy can be accomplished until we resolve to change this aspect of government.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Here’s a post I did about how Paul Krugman was affected by reading Asimov it’s a matter of how large the data set is as to how well you can make predictions:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/given-enough-data-points-all-things-becomes-a-numb/
[Removed]
and office holders do things that affect people...thanks for the comment
[Removed]
Replace Geithner with Krugman, and Holder with Nader. Then watch the games begin!
This actually would be fun to watch.
Get out the VOTE and we may see it, or a reasonable facsimile there of!!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
Idi-otic!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
"free will" is a matter still under considerable debate
and I think you miss the point those who say we need not choose between Obama and Romney are deigning reality just as much as those that deign climate change, not sure you got that point, but if you have a case for how neither of these men will be President I will hear it, and see if it makes more or less sense than the climate deniers, not saying they are the same people just that they are equally persuaded by fact
it is the personnel belief of many the world is not warming, and it makes about as much sense, if you want me to get scientific then Nancy is not John therefore they are not the same
look it's not the world I want either, it's just the world we got, we have to start from where we're at, not from where we wish we were
'Free Will' exists as I have chosen to answer you. There was no coercion involved, I could have just as easily chosen not to.
There is nothing written in stone that a third party candidate can not win. It is highly improbable that one will get close to a win this cycle, but it is not a 'fact' by any definition of the word. Light travels at 186,000 m/sec in a vacuum... THAT is a fact. It is true no matter where or when its tested.
Therefore, to insinuate that those who support third party candidates are akin to climate deniers is a logical fail. No matter how improbable a third party candidate's chances to win are, it is not impossible. AGW deniers on the other hand are not admitting to a conclusion based on actual objective physical facts that have been tested repeatedly thousands if not millions of times. Nothing in Politics offers a level of proof this high that is being challenged or denied.... For instance, it was also stated that a black man could never become POTUS because historically it has never happened before and white majority in America would never allow it. However improbable that statement used to be, it is no longer so. There are no irrefutable facts in the realm of politics.
Your example in this thread is using an apples to oranges comparison to make your point, the highly subjective world of politics compared to the highly objective world of science. The other part of my problem with your statement lies with the ultra negative connotation that is associated with AGW deniers being transferred to those that believe in third party candidate supporters. There is no need to smear others of a different political opinion.
it's not impossible green men will land and take away all the bad gas, just improbable
having read your comment, and how you completely avoid the point, first you say it is your opinion the they are the same so it's OK, I point out that they are not since Nancy is not John you say nothing to that point, at least I gave your point a fitting answer
[Removed]
I didn't have the time to address this properly as I have had a busy day. However it needs addressing.
The logical path down the road of Solipsism leads to a state of 'no knowledge' at all, since none can ultimately be proved. We are left with the choice of either we are in the Matrix or not. I choose the Red Pill.
So that life has some practical use, some basic assumptions regarding our existence must be made and I choose to believe that when I close my eyes, 'reality' is that stuff outside of myself that I trip over when I can't see it. It is independent of me and as such objective in nature. As a physical scientist this makes the most sense to me. I admit that I am no philosopher nor as trained in philosophy as you obviously are.... but I am aware of this trap in thinking.... and it is a trap.
Like I said, I see dualism as a necessary conceptualization for a practical existence, but I also understand the interdependent/ interconnected nature of the universes natural systems. How far that interconnected qual extends is continuously being unveiled by science.
Thus to me the belief in Free Will is a non-issue, but a given.
[Removed]
human behavior is largely predictable
Are you basing this off of the NW University paper of 2010 that stated that human behavior was 93% predictable based on cell phone mobility studies?
[Removed]
[Removed]
Damn ( death ) who woulda thunk it - Nostradamus would be so jealous right now I'll bet he's a spinnin in his grave goin damn damn damn double damn I meant to write that one down ....stupid stupid I am such a stupid predictor of the future ... hell I mean that one was a gimme ... how in hell did I miss predicting that one ....OH hell now I'll never rest in peace.........
[Removed]
Ok. I don't give much credence to predictive modeling for behavior. We are creatures of habit to a good extent, and habits themselves are not difficult to predict by their very nature- they are repetitive, especially for things like motion (our societal framework constricts that a great deal), food types, fashion, and other superficial elements to our lives. The ability to predict these types of behavior may give more credence to the math then what it deserves.
Science fiction authors have created scenarios that may seem predictive but are merely the next logical progressive step. If we are to explore the stars, which is a dream mankind has had since he looked up at the heavens at night.... first he may want to walk there, not knowing the distance (Jacobs Ladder)... when that fails he knows he has to learn to fly (Icarus)... next he must make it to the closest celestial body, the Moon (Jules Vern)... as the growth in technology, actual or imagined, allows.
The creative process itself, which is essential to our species IMO is beyond modeling. When they can tell me who and when the creation of art on the order of the next 'Mona Lisa' will take place.... then it gets scary..... or on a much larger scale since it is statistical where and when crimes will take place. There is a TV show about that very thing now... should I don't take it seriously? I don't see it happening.
[Removed]
Animal Magnetism, Franz Mesmer 18th century
Ok these formatting codes don't work.... how do you get the hyperlinks to display correctly?
[Removed]
Culture and movies, art and advertising have always...always a mirrored relationship. They are intertwined and influence eachother.
Being part of the LSD (and other hallucinogens) generation myself, I didn't see it's adoption and use as a bad thing. By themselves the substances did not provide for mind control ala MK-ULTRA, other techniques and settings would have to be employed. The users, the 'counter culture' provided America with an environmental and antiwar conscience.... not what the government wanted or had in mind at the time.
I care for the topic and I believe we should always be wary of what the government is doing to us.... I'm still wondering about fluorides in drinking water. Any more information you may have I am willing to read.
[Removed]
Substances and techniques can be used for good and for evil.
I vote for the Good uses.
[Removed]
anyone with half a brain never uses wikipedia as a reference. its worthless.
[Removed]
when scholarship counts, wiki is worthless.
Wiki is a starting point for a general topic. The references provided on many topics can be good. It takes a little work to sift through them but you can pull the good from the bad. Very few things are worthless.
With the topic I posted there are 22 footnotes and as many books and papers from peer reviewed journals listed in the references.
[Removed]
Krugman was influenced by Asimov, but I did not know this work had been done interesting...
Could you please apply that logic to explain how nether Romney or Obama will win, or failing that why it does not matter?
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher."
~ AMbrose Bierce
damn that's a cool quote
As far as philosophy and philosophers go, my all time favorite is this one from Monty Python:
"I think, therefore I am. I'm pink, therefore I'm spam."
lol LOf'nL
Due to factors of entrenchment, third parties are effectively un-viable, thus a waste of Vote. Instant Runoff Elections (IREs) break through the many layers and factors of entrenchment and would open the door for multiple parties. But this would put a stake in the heart of the RepubliCon Cult, because they couldn't steal or buy elections, and they can't sell plutocracy! And remember, Cons are the political arm of the 1% would-be Kings. So... this pits Kings & Cons against any attempt to get IREs enacted. That's a war!
With regard to "facts," whether regarding 3rd parties or global warming (I prefer pollution-related climate change) you have to factor in dishonesty, religious belief and/or cult-worship obedience. Facts (the correlation) don't always apply, when they should.
I consider facts to be measurable objective observations.... not correlations, nor do scientists really consider correlation to be facts.
It is measurable that the earth is warming, it is measurable the amount of thermal energy that the atmosphere is retaining do to GHG's, it is measurable the pH change taking place in the oceans.....etc etc...
That's nice.
Get out the VOTE!!!
Just to vote with no meaning behind it? Another round of lesser of two evils? Vote because hopefully a liberal will be in place in case another Supreme Court justice kicks off and needs replacing?
Voting doesn't have the magic it once had. 50% of our population doesn't vote, not because they are stupid or lazy, but because they see the futility in voting for political machine driven candidates. Once in office they do the bidding of the highest bidder.
You can not change the system from within. It's corrupt. Continuing to vote hoping for change is self deception.
If we had Voted for lesser evils consistently since Washington, by Van Buren our elected representatives would have been near perfect. By now they would be Gods. But we fuck up and Vote for Greater evils, or don't participate at all in our democracy.
Let's get registered and let's get out the VOTE!!
http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic
You don't get it.
NO!
You don't get it!
We have the lowest Voter Turnout in the world! And the most Big $ influence! Too much Voting is not the problem!!
It's Class War, we're losing, WakeTFU!!!
Get People REGISTERED and get out the VOTE!!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true or http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_voter_registration.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic
Spot on.
Great comment geo
How do you get change then? The anarchists refuse to participate at all, not that it matters, their numbers smaller then any third party making their ides even less likely to be advanced. A third party can't grow if it's a one issue party or if it can't escape the hopeless picture you paint.
There is no move to co-opt the Democrat party the way the tea party has done with the Republicans. We're left to choose from the lesser of two evils with no national movement offering anything that could actually work.
Financial ownership of the nation's wealth by the taxpayers would create a competitive force to balance the corporations when Congress sits down to spend the money. Let both parties compete to raise the banner of citizen ownership of surpluses in the Treasury or face the 100% in the streets. Once in place, the owners will find the right people to manage their money. With the real owners looking on, Congress won't have a free hand to treat the national wealth as their private property. With direct citizen ownership of the nation, political parties become less important. Issue the Stock Certificates.
How is this going to happen? There is no group large enough or willing to organize to vote for representatives to make the changes you suggest. You talk of a solution with no way to get there. There is no 100% or 99% in the streets, there isn't even 1% and the numbers dwindle as the actions made look increasingly pointless.
defeatist!
Vote out climate change denying republicans
That is the only course of action, and it should be an obvious one for all of us. Unfortunately it leaves us as isolated voters without as much power as we could have had as a group. I'm simply tired of the anarchists or socialists with grand plans and no followers. The ones that preach a sort of quiet mass uprising that magically changes everything without any real effort.
This group could have strongly influenced the selection of representatives this cycle, but those running it have chosen to stand on the sidelines "raising awareness". We could have had someone to vote for rather then just something we have to vote against. Voting out Republicans is the only path left, but it's exactly where we started a year ago.
I agree Don't despair. We will make real change whatever course the anarchists argue over.
It's not despair really, we're simply individuals, in the same position we were in just over a year ago. Would have been nice though to have a group pushing a set agenda across many congressional districts.
For all their faults with ideology, the tea party had the right method and have seriously disrupted and been a thorn in the side of the traditional Republican party. Occupy could have become a force and directed the national discussion. Too bad, but we're not any worse off then we were last September.
It will take years. I believe OWS will have a growing influence on the country.
Maybe, if they admit a few adults into the room. They seem to be dreamers that didn't see a real opportunity when it was in front of them. The opportunity is gone and their real numbers are now seen as insignificant by too many people.
You may be right but it will be a very long time before they can capture the imagination of the general population again. I see it as a missed opportunity. They see you and I as the heretics.
I don't think about how they think of me. I spend little to no time on the real "missed opportunities" you & I agree on. Onward, regardless of what the original young anarchists dreamt of, this movement, like all movements has a life of it's own! How it evolves will be determined by the participants. And notwithstanding the reality that the young anarchists started it, the vast majority of participants are progressive, dem leaning voters who want to try reforming theexisting system even if they support the "new system from the ground up " idea.
Solidarity
Obama will have a strong influence, much more than OWS. But then, the dems pretty much equal OWS. You know, OWS is not like it once was. Times change! And, that's good. Nobody's camping outside anymore, nobody's attacking ports, and there are basically no GA or anarchists left. OWS has become friendly with the Obama crowd, and that's how it should be.
You are grossly mistaken! GA's are still goin on, Protests continue, Anarchists are still working dilligently on the now form of govt, OWS still does not embrace any parties, Why do you believe these falsehoods.
No falsehoods there my friend. Absolutely true. When OWS started it was full of spunk, full of rage. It was led by anarchists who camped in the cold and who attended GA every single day. I was there. They blocked ports. They had the black bloc fighting against the police in Oakland and NYC. It was a protest, a fight. Thank God those days are over. Look at this website. There are no anarchists around here. OWS protesters do not want to block ports, camp outside, or use black bloc tactics anymore. We have seen that this idea of a revolution is unrealistic. It will not happen. If you take a moment to go read the contents of this site, you'll notice it is strongly pro Obama. If you read the site when it started, almost 12 months ago, you'll notice it was full of anarchists who were against Obama. The new OWS protesters are softer, more open. They know we need to work within the system and that we cannot change it from without. They understand we need to vote for Obama because Obama will bring change.
You're entitled to your opinion. More power to you!
Good luck in all your good efforts.
Elect progressives. Vote out vote suppressing republicans!
Solidarity! heh heh heh
Step 1 is to introduce the idea. That's where I am today. The notion of democratizing the capital of the political system through taxpayer ownership of the Treasury's surpluses has never been suggested in American History. Many people (other than the Left) are unaware that the political system is a capital market, much less have a workable solution for neutralizing the deep pockets in control. Of course, the few words I gave in my comment to you are hardly enough to convey the idea. And unless you ask for a complete explanation, the mechanism for passing ownership to the people will remain a wavy mirage.
It took 2 or 3 hundred years of discussion for the ideas brewing in Europe to finally bear fruit in America's Constitutional Republic. They started the discussion at the start and not the end.
As for the end game in the streets, if the notion gained traction, it would be a solution for all and in that sense, 100%. There will be no restoration of the democratic impulse that succeeds by dividing the citizens into opposing ideological camps. And since Congress would never voluntarily give up their private ownership of the Treasury, it would take an American Spring with 100% of the individual taxpayers in the streets or in support. I've come here to introduce the idea since OWS knows how to organize a path to 'get there'.
With a system that is now self-correcting to economic destruction there is not much time to achieve citizen ownership before a 'crisis' will establish corporate capitalism at the point of the patriot-act gun.
Of course in a literal sense you are absolutely correct. As it stands now I am about the only who sees public financial ownership of the nation's wealth as the answer to our problems. So it is less than .0000001% (providing you ignore the public myth couched in such terms as 'the people's roads' or 'the taxpayer's money').
I don't see enough financial misery at this point. There isn't going to be any massive popular uprising with 70 or 80% of the working age population employed. I seriously doubt you could organize a significant number of the unemployed at this point in time.
Thanks for getting back. The idea of democratizing the capital of the political system came to me 20 years ago and I've been modifying it since. Invariably, progress has come after bouncing it off skeptical people with a mind to think and speak. Sometimes I find I have failed to communicate clearly. I seem to have tripped into suggesting the mechanism is a get-rich-quick scheme for the poor and unemployed. Such is not the intention. Everyone who lost on their life holdings (house, investments, job) in 2008 sees the destructive power of government policy seeking private gain for office holders at the expense of the commonwealth. The first bed-party between Congress and the new concentrated corporate wealth led to a depression in agriculture in the 19th. century that helped lead us into the 1929 depression (the railroads and the courts screwing farmers on rate-fixing). So we've had two catastrophic failures of the economy already resulting from the nation's wealth being diverted from the democratic base to the private gain of office holders. The next screw-up will be strike three. So the potential advocates of people-ownership of the business of government is well over 99%. I'll say that without explaining 'business of government'--there are only so many words allowed.
Let me give an example to show why all citizens would be interested. Let's say the Martian rover stumbles on vast gold deposits and NASA says it can start shipping it home in 10 years. If the government then said it would distribute the net of the new wealth to the taxpayers as rebates for the money already paid into the IRS, providing taxpayers file a claim by clicking a single box at an on-line site, do you think a significant % would respond?
What is proposed is that taxpayers' annual payments be treated as Paid-In-Capital by the government so that surpluses in the Treasury would belong to the taxpayers, pro-rated to their contributions. Even without finding gold on Mars we had, in fact, a nice surplus in 2001 that the people could have claimed under this system, rather than have it slip into Cheney's wet war-dream.
But the idea is not a get-rich-quick scheme and optimal efficiency would be reached when there are no surpluses (other than unexpected windfalls) and taxes are kept to a minimum while our problems are met efficiently. It is more of a pride-of-ownership issue than a road to riches. The core of the mechanism is to use the principles of capitalism to judo the abuses of capitalism. By giving citizens ownership of the capital (the Treasury--specifically its surpluses) voters then have an ownership stake in how the business of government is run (to supplement the public's existing interest in the infrastructure). The invisible hand is armed for popular use. Voters will view Congress as the managers of their money and watch the performance by checking the value of their Stock from year to year--an objective measurement. Rather than picking candidate A or B to screw them in the present system in which either A or B becomes the owners of the nation's wealth for private gain upon taking office, voters will begin to self-correct to finding candidates who do a good job of minding the owners' shop. It is a system that will require years to reach its potential. It is a rudder that begins to nudge the ship of state back on course.
I am not looking to recruit a mass movement at this time, but rather to introduce the idea that we are screwed because the capital of the political system, the nation's wealth as held in the Treasury and spent to achieve political ends, is owned by the wrong group. Pass the ownership to the taxpayers and see what effect that has on putting the nation's resources to work to serve the commonwealth, as intended.
Thank you for considering a complex system that I have only scratched the surface of here. This is not an idea for twitter.
In theory that is what we already have. In practice we find no one pays any attention to what our representatives do with our money. Considering our level of debt it will be a long time before there is any real surplus.
We suck it up and act like patriots realizing that we can inform but that is not the same as ruling. The process, as I see it, to bring real lasting change, is reduce the GOP to nothing by simply telling people about them, work like hell in the Democratic primaries to get people like Elizabeth Warren, and when we start affecting the outcome of elections like the TEA party does, the news won’t be able to stop talking about us. To those that say this sounds too “mainstream” for a group like us, I say be creative, any way you can defeat a Republican, more power to you. The most change we can get and still keep the Constitution is to then spilt the Ds and make a people’s party, and I kinda like the Constitution.
[Removed]
not the party the doc...
sometimes people try to make this sound more complicated than it is…
keep it simple and tell the truth, or something like that
KISS!
[Removed]
if you had me in a lie you would show it I'm sure I never change my name, shithead but then you never do either, when you going to address my response bitch
[Removed]
You seem to have deleted the comment guess you were tired of getting your ass kicked there.
[Removed]
write in NO WAR
at this point the repub and Dems are denying the popular environment
spot on
Voting for the lesser of two evils is what we have been programmed to believe. It keeps us locked in a political mindset that does not exist. Break out of your prison and vote for a person!
Just more negativity. Don't give up. get out of the corner you've crawled into.
You are ignoring the effect of voting for third parties...
I agree with the Tea Party stance that you are advocating: Pick a party (the democrats) and pick more liberal candidates to push into office.
I fear, however, both approaches are doomed to be taken over by the established party heirarchy. Do the awesome democrats already in the house and senate ever get their way? No, not really..
Voting third party has multiple effects.
1) it sends a clear message to the party that you took a vote from 2) enough taken votes forces them to compromise on issues you care about (electoral reform anyone?) 3) it moves the 'center' or the range of topics and discussions
Nothing will be accomplished this election cycle without Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in the debates. They'll continue talking about a little bit of tax policy difference, and pretend that makes them different on every issue. The reality is, at the top, the parties are not different enough for a group as high aiming as OWS to have to settle.
I do believe OWS needs to be in the elections, and any way they are in the elections, changing the debate, pushing candidates, pushing dialogue, will be a good effect. But there needs to be a little more political direction, a little more movement from education and consensus building into action.. If you are a member of OWS and don't vote, that's ridiculous. If you vote D, it's a compromise, and a decent one by most arguments. If you vote Green, you're voting the future.
"1) it sends a clear message to the party that you took a vote from"
Is it completely clear to you that all of Nader's votes were taken from Gore?
I have heard many make a different case, so I feel your central premise is flawed. The best way to be heard is to speak, if you are speaking truth all the better, Obama will be tons better than Romney, Jill and Gary would do the nation a service to speak the truth, just as Nader could have in 2000 if his ego had not gotten in the way.
Heh, yeah I love Nader but his ego was pretty out of control.
I think having them in the debates is as important as anyone voting for them. They change the argument, where the 'middle' ground is, what is to be discussed and what is not.
When I watch the debates I want to hear what the candidates have to say, there is never enough time for me, Jill and Gary should write some letter or editorials I can hear them fine I don't want them taking up space on the ballot or time in the debates, because they do not have the support of enough Americans, if they earn that support as Perot did in 1992 then they should be there, but I believe you earn your way it should not be given.
Put another way I don't think the American people would learn much with ten thousand people on the podium and I think it is very important that they do.
You also did not address my question, do you believe all of Nader's votes were taken from Gore and if not how does voting third party " send a clear message"?
Thorium is the best way forward. There's been several open source projects to move it forward. It would be a good thing for Occupy to get into:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U
Thorium is interesting to look at.
I personally think it'll be something entirely non-mineral based.
Algae, or some other organic based energy that derives closely from the sun, seems the most logical to me. I also recently heard about a hydrogen expansion system... The energy from the sun heats hydrogen, it expands, pushing past a valve, then compresses again, pushing back past the valve, and continues pushing the valvue up and down to create energy rapidly. Let me see if I can dig up more info on it..
I am not as confident as you are on this one, I think the fuel reprocessing could be a problem.
Want to know why Reps and Dems are the same? Both believe the party line. Just like a religion, they are told what to think instead of to think for themselves.
Political and religious power comes from coerced collective belief, not from independent thought or truth.
All people who follow party lines blindly ARE the same in that way. (the party lines of course are vastly different).
But not all repubs or Dems blindly follow the party line.
I do agree it is sorta like some people blindly follow religion. Now which party has more people who blindly follow religion. Perhaps the party that enjoys the support of the religious fundamentalists, the born agains, the bible belt? I think that is the Repubs. No?
While repubs march lock step without muchdebate/dissent, the dems are very varied and frequently debating the issues. A real big tent.
Like the great Will rogers said "I don't belong to an organized political party! I'm a democrat!"
Peace
What?
have you ever even read my stuff?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/search/?q=user%3Afactsrfun
Or why don't you give it a try ask me something see how i think.
Yes I've read your stuff. You can't seem to make a statement without including the letters R or D.
OK, let's see how you think. Out of all of your past posts, how many do not include a reference to Dem or Rep, Liberal or Conservative, or some other symbol of political duopoly?
Here’s three I pulled out some older ones but I do like these:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-america-revolution-was-the-largest-act-of-weal/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-about-a-few-fundamentals-about-capitalism/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/fundamentals-of-capitalism-part-two/
It looks like I owe you an apology. Not a single partisan comment. But I am concerned that in the meantime you have contracted a serious disorder, partisan's disease. The symptoms are an inability to see other than a very narrow viewpoint. It is curable, but only if the patient forces himself to widen their outlook. With a little stretching, full recovery is possible.
Did you want some recent stuff?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-hate-my-mailman-redux/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/here-is-a-short-about-alec-its-funny-take-a-look/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/chick-fil-a-is-right-why-is-the-government-interfe/
Don't piss factsy off jr, he might set his multiple pseudonyms on you. lol
I've decided that bensdad, factsrfun, vqkag, and zendog are hopelessly locked in their single dimensional R/L political viewpoint. Nothing else can exist outside of this dimension, so they place anything that does not fit in their democrat model, in the republican model. From their viewpoint, since you aren't a democrat, you are a republican because that is the only other possibility.
Why try to engage a person who refuses to leave his prison cell and explore the possibility that more dimensions exist. It's a complete waste of time so I'll spend it more wisely engaging open minds.
You don't speak for me boss!!
I am fighting for a new system of govt! Fromj the ground up, horizontal, real direct democracy!. You do not know what you are talkin about.
This country is controlled by the party duopoly! You are serving one if you attack the other. I didn't make that up!. Do you ignore that reality so you can attack dems and serve repubs?
I recognize that both parties are corrupted (not equally). Repubs proudly trumpet the conservative policies that benefit the 1% plutocrats. Some dems always cave in and vote for those conservative policies.
Do you recognize that? Not likely.
In the meantime, the in between time there is an election in less than 3 months. We must keep the right wing out of power because I believe that the dems can be dragged back from the right to serve the 99%.
You and I disagree. But I believe in a new form of govt. In my heart, mind and actions. You have misinterpreted my belief that we must manage this corrupt system as best we can until the new system emerges.
There is a possibility we can lay the groundwork for the new system of govt. (money out of politics, other electoral reforms) but not if repubs get into office.
I will not serve the repubs by attacking the dems during an election. Until the new system emerges the dems are the best hope for progress.
Peace.
Aren't you a RepubliCon Plant who still lives in the closet?
Get out of Closets, GET OUT THE VOTE!!!
http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html
http://normangoldman.com/listen/
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
I would be happy to engage you in a discussion about how either you don't see Romney or Obama in the the White House, or why it doesn't matter which one. That is a discussion that Odin, yourself, TM, and hc are never willing to discuss they are all brainwashed, (by that I mean they base their actions on false beliefs of an illogical nature) and refuse to engage in any discussion of the facts. I have always been clear that I do think we can win and I have come to understand something else as "non-partisan" as we all are being called a Republican is something no one will stand for.
Some of us want change, some are willing to settle for crumbs.
I dont have to tell you which one is leading, and which one is following.
You go campaign for the Dems. Thats fine. There are plenty of sheep willing to follow you. I helping other options, because sooner or later this thing is going to fall apart.
I'll know I didnt contribute to innocent deaths, troop deaths, and deaths over here from endorsing criminals.
Most Democrats and Republican's ideas of what "progress" is, when measure their parties, is so far from what is possible, its disgusting to even humor it. Its shameful.
with every word and every action you help elect Republicans, and you share their sins no matter what you claim you can never wash the blood away that stains your hands...
Blood on hands? You are the one that is openly supporting war, not me.
Innocent people everywhere are wishing you didnt.
We all know your game- more war, corruption and more free passes for the banks. Congrats, you will get your way. Obama is a lock for a second term.
Obama is not a lock! Repubs are trying to suppress dem voters. They cannot win w/o cheating! And they are trying to cheat.
Speakng of war. Do you think we can agree on some kinda Earth Police where the US would commit our military (after we cut it by 50%) to UN/regional orgs to battle dictators all over the world?
Whadda ya say? Ya wit' me?
NO. the un? that collection of idiots? one world order is fascism. not thanks.
C'mon. We can be the liberal army of democracy! No fascism. I think we would be pushing a world govt of direct democracy. So I think that would be more anarchist/socialist, not fascist.
How's 'dat?. Will you go for that.?
No, i am not a statist.
Protecting the people of world against dictators & fascist does not appeal to you.?
We could make a lot of friends. Facilitate good will and expanded business contacts. What about that?
you are hopelessly naive.
Not a Statist?
Then surely you see the folly of stalwartly promoting States "rights".
you obviously dont know what " statist" or statism is. use a dictionary before you respond .
If you really understood how elections work you would see its a no contest.
Wow it must so good being you. I mean you understand everything so much better than everyone else.
Please tell us how it will all be.
Go ask Kerry/Dole how it feels to be rolled out and humilated in public to keep that very same public believing in this corrupted system.
I gotcha' corrupted system right'ere.
Roll 'dis!
that's what those that would elect Republicans always say, they said it about Gore too,
Obama is NOT Gore, and this is 2012, not 1999.
How many war protests did you go to in the 2000's
and Romney is not Bush, he will be much worse
No one will ever be worse tahn Bush. And Romney doesnt have a prayers chance in hell of winning. He was placed there on purpose, and it wasnt to dethrone O-bomb-ya.
Gotta keep it tight in the polls, and let Obama slip by, by probably 2-3%. Lots of talk on ROmneys faith vs the christian right after Obama wins. And then lots of talk about Obamas second term plans.
Its very easy to see all of this before it happens if you dont get caught up in the talking points. They are there to distract. There are defifnte patterns.
Romney is just the newst Kerry/Dole. Thats all. Doesnt have a shot.
I don't think I could add anything to make your comment more transparent than it already is.
He's not going to lose. No bankers have gone to jail, and the bombs are still falling. No need to replace him.
Even got a free handout for the insurance companies, who are right behind Oil and Banking as far as powerful lobbies go.
Its pretty obvious. Just follow the trends.
Now if Obama followed through on his campaign promises, they would be running someone WAY better than Romney to get him out. But they are happy. He is doing what he;s told.
to below, about those promises, we'll be going over them one at a time later to help you remember:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
Even most Democrats in Tampa know that site is total PR nonsense...
Another line of bullshit that you've fallen for. You are a politicians freakin dream campaigner. Go sign up and get going if you are so fuckin happy. What are you waiting for?
Think of all the good you could do instead of sitting on this site for hours on end bitching and whining.
was I mistaken or did you long to discuss important stuff?
I would be happy to engage you in a discussion about how either you don't see Romney or Obama in the the White House, or why it doesn't matter which one. That is a discussion that Odin, yourself, TM, and hc are never willing to discuss they are all brainwashed, (by that I mean they base their actions on false beliefs of an illogical nature) and refuse to engage in any discussion of the facts. I have always been clear that I do think we can win and I have come to understand something else as "non-partisan" as we all are being called a Republican is something no one will stand for.
The actual problem is that it's as simple as R/L politics.
It isn't.
The D/R thing, is even further from the truth.
All of this thinking leaves out the inroads and co-option performed by the neolibe(R)tarians.
It pretends they don't exist, or have no effect.
That's just naive.
a self fulfilling prophecy
A self fulfilling truth.
human behavior is adaptable
We hope.
For as long as we play on the 'R/L Field,' there will be no sea change.
Only for as long as you keep considering it a game; something to play.
It isn't.
Know that there are very real differences, and act accordingly.
we are now talking semantecs in my analogy, i see. i fully realize that this is NO "game," perhaps more than you know, as not only our future, but more importantly the future of our children, and grandchildren are at stake. and i for one am willing to risk arrest, and possibly bodily harm to see that this movement succeeds.
Then change the field - Pro-People/society/world and Anti-People/society/world.
Support Pro-People/society/world and issues
Oppose Anti-People/society/world and issues.
yes that and a lot of defiance to this corrupt system
Absolutely - expressed in as many ways as are available to use.
YES
And so I must ask forbearance for those who campaign. Those who are against the destruction of the environment, against wage slavery, against tax breaks for the wealthy, against profits over people, against money in politics, against corpoRATists etc etc etc etc. But advocate for a solution in the system voting for pro People/Society/World issues and representitives - these individuals should also be embraced as they should embrace public protest in the streets.
Let us all work together and respect differences of approach in reaching the same goal/ideal.
[Removed]
Those are all worthy goals DK, but this movement's value is in it being an outside, non-partisan, defiant movement where resistance of every kind, direct actions, organizing, and education should be taking place. I realize that some people excel at different things, and/or are unable (for different reasons) to do all these things, but we should all be doing as much as we can.
I believe you have a huge blind spot as to taking and using the system of democracy = politics = the people in politics = ( and I am fine with ) partisan politics as long as it is pro people/society/world/peace/health/prosperity/for-all partisan politics.
As more people "feel the pinch," it is our job more than ever to educate them on what is driving the corrupt political process, and yes more people will probably get involved with politics. But until the corrupt elite is in fear of losing everything they hold dear, ie. money and power, nothing that could be considered real change will happen. We (OWS) who want a sea change are that fear, and we will only remain so by being outside the political system for the forseeable future at least.
I disagree - and will leave it at that.
ok, thanks for the constructive debate.
just thought i would throw this in there - from my boy noam - "Personally I'm in favor of democracy, which means that the central institutions in the society have to be under popular control. Now, under capitalism we can't have democracy by definition. Capitalism is a system in which the central institutions of society are in principle under autocratic control. Thus, a corporation or an industry is, if we were to think of it in political terms, fascist; that is, it has tight control at the top and strict obedience has to be established at every level -- there's a little bargaining, a little give and take, but the line of authority is perfectly straightforward. Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism. I think that until major institutions of society are under the popular control of participants and communities, it's pointless to talk about democracy. Business Today, May 1973 [18]
GoodNight.
Had to answer here. Having the dem and repub party shrinking, while having independents growing in numbers is a good thing, and a sign of our increasingly good political health, but we still have a corrupt political system which will remain in control for longer than it would for us to wake people up, educate them, organize them, and get them out in the streets demanding change. I guess more than anything our slight differences have more to do with what will be more expedient.
While in Alaska, i listened to people more than i talked, which admittedly is not like me. lol I found out that the tourism industry is way down...fewer RV rentals/sales, and fewer people riding on the Alaskan Marine Highway ferry system, as well as listening to fishermen at the enviromental festival i went to who complained of corporate take-overs. Then today walking by the river near my home which leads into the bay, i noticed much fewer boats anchored off-shore, and only two boats traversing the river/bay on a fairly nice day . This is unusual at the Jersey shore in the summer. My point being that the impetus that causes OWS to get that ground-swell of support it needs is not far away...as more, and more people are feeling the pinch.
Truth - as more people feel the pinch they will look to get involved - and a main drive will be getting the corrupt out of office = politics = people involved in politics.
I do not believe our entanglement with the dems will bring about any 'edible' fruit, semi-edible with no chance at ever fully ripening...probably yes. We are the outside pressure group...the radicals, who have anarchists amongst us who want a sea change. The dems can point to us and say to the corrupt elite, see what is waiting in the wings. We cannot simultaneously be a movement that is connected to the dem party, and a defiant movement which is what we must remain.
Why would you connect with a party? Be independent and vote issues and support those who support those issues.
Shift your paradigm - if you can not do that - how will we get others to shift theirs - how will you get others to shift theirs? The Democratic party is shrinking the republican party is shrinking the independent voters are increasing.
And i would like to add, and agree with you that we should "all work together and respect differences in approach." But the latter admittedly is difficult for me when i see those differences,namely promoting partisan politics on THIS forum as being a detriment to our success....especially when people either purposely twist what i am saying, or label me as a republicon. Perhaps if i had never seen some of the sacrifices so many of the young people...who have so much to lose... are making in this movement, i would not be as terse in my replies.
You support your efforts to protest in the streets as do I and most every one who is a supporter on the movements for humanity. If you want to address partisan politics then make it clear that you are not for party politics but are for humanity politics. And then support those who are trying to get the corrupted out of government. You do not have to support democrats or progressives or anything else that is an established party - but you can support issues and people in politics that are pro-humanity.
You downright partisan politics people should also consider this and act appropriately to unite and not divide.
[Removed]
I disagree - and will leave it at that for now.
I do not support partisan politics of any stripe, and i have put up threads concerning the wars, and mostly recently the enviroment (which turned into election central) which are both real concerns to me, as are our civil liberties. I have very little faith in our political system at this time for good reason...namely thirty years of things continuing to go down-hill through republican and democratic majorities, and administrations. This 'go nowhere' involvement and paradigm has brought us to the point where we are at today, and it is where 'they' want to keep us.
Undoubtedly as we push from the outside, changes will come from within the political process, but the changes, as i have said before will be minor ones, which will be brought about to satiate us, and to avoid the sea change of reform we so desparately need....and that can only come about by having enough people educated, having them share our out-rage, and ready tro take direct action.
I have heard this from you before - what makes you think that complaining from the outside while trying to make no changes on the inside is gonna help? Get the public's awareness with protest - YES - but then something constructive needs to be done with that awareness.
When it all comes down to the bottom line - it is when the people own their government and own the process of government that things will change - for the better.
And that is exactly what the power structure in this country wants....
Hmmmmmmm........
Ding...ding...ding.
Hmmmm.
Then stop playing and get involved.
No fear!!!!!
[Removed]
[Removed]
Exactly where is my supposed 'fear' that you keep bringing up. For most of my adult life, I have lived with and been in charge of a vessel that carried thousands of barrels (42 gls.) of some very volatile petroleum products. Was I afraid? No, but I had a healthy respect for the potential of disaster. Unfortunately, some people who i knew personally got careless. They are no longer here today. You can draw the 'parallels' (and there are) from there.
Why, I thought you knew.
Your fear of co-option. Did you forget that we spoke of this before?
I'll give you some time, as you are likely suffering a bit of jet lag...........:)
yes i am still suffering some jet lag from my long trip, plus having a dead battery, and a flat front tire waiting for me early this morning, when i went to pick up my vehicle at a friend's home. luckily i put a charger, and a cig lighter air pump in the back before i left. By far though, missing my granddaughter is my biggest issue for me right now, and as i have said numerous times: She is the main reason that i am here.
Yes i did remember that we spoke of the "fear" that i had. Keep in mind that this is not a paralyzing type of fear on my part. I usually save that word for something that is imminent, and life threatening. Yes i do have a 'legitimate' fear/concern.... that we probably both have that this movement will fail, and go into the dust-bin of history. Would it be safe to say that we both know that there are people on this forum from both the left, and right that are either trying to co-opt this movement for selfish reasons, that have nothing to do with the success of this movement.....OR... killing it by making our shared agenda of wanting a better, more just world.... look stupid, and using it to advance a conservative agenda??..I would say yes, and some are doing it in insidious ways, would you agree? Neither of these two groups have the health of 'our' struggle as their primary concern. Your view on our political entanglement with the dems is remarkably simular to those that are trying to co-opt us, and unfortunately my view of our dis-entanglement with the dems could be...has been...and still is to some, construed as being a republicon. I am not. I respect you for your belief on this as i believe that you are altruistic to the success of this struggle. Please respect mine. However i do not share that respect for some of the other posters on here, especially ones who have 'labeled' me, and i will fight fire with fire when i have to.
I'm happy you're back, safe and sound.......:) Sorry about your car trouble.
As you know, I still respect you and thank you for your involvement.......:)
I was disappointed in facts for his baseless attack. I thought it ill placed.
Give yourself a break, it was a long trip.........:)
We can talk later.
Really. Many conservative 99'ers would also like to see money out of politics. If I remember right, in 2008 Obama flip flopped on using public campaign financing when he realized how much more $$ he had raised than McCain. I just don't understand the rabid Obama fans here.
To certain people, Obama has that charismatic light that seems to blind people to any wrong he commits. His attempt to reverse the indefinite detention provision in the NDAA that was recently overturned is a good example. Even though this provision goes against the most basic of human rights, and would have been condemned if done by any other world leader, Obama is excused.
It also would have been condemned here if a republican prez had done it. Don't hear Geo Stephanoplous, Rachel Maddow, or any other 'news' people making much issue about ndaa.
Actually Romney supports NDAA too. They can't criticize either candidate on this issue when both support it.
[Removed]
[Removed]
9 points?! Looks like you arent alone.....
Heard WAY more "fuck em all" than partisan crap at OccTampa today. Thank god the interent isnt reality.
There's still hope. People are using common sense, questioning what they have been taught, finally seeing through the dense haze of partisan delusion.
[Removed]
What do you think about opposing corpoRATist's and their anti-people policies and promoting people partisans and supporting people's issues?
I'm against unfairness no matter who it's committed by. But I am most against the people who sit and watch the unfairness, knowing that it's wrong, and choose to do nothing.
jrhirsch - "MY" thoughts - not directed at you - But at Everyone.
People need to shift their paradigm.
Talk to issues.
Support humanity in all things.
Agree to disagree with true thoughts/perspectives/ideals - but also confront wrong thinking anti-people posts and comments - an individual need not be called a republicon or a Demoncrat - the thrust of any issue is - IS IT PRO-People or Anti-People?
We will not see a coming together in support of Peace Health and Prosperity for ALL - if we keep picking at core party beliefs - lose the Dem label - lose the Repub label - start using pro-people or anti-people or pro-corporatist or anti-corporatist or some such.
Point out the positive in issues for People ( ALL People's ) Peace Health and Prosperity. Refute anti-people issues posts comments.
Acknowledge the positive even if you would do things differently. And you can state how you would do it differently - But respect positive input.
It would be better to say we are pro fairness rather than pro people. Sometimes the people are unfair.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
One obvious difference is that most people who choose to vote outside the duopoly have no illusions that their candidate will win in this presidential election cycle. There is no disagreement on that fact.
A climate change denier, by definition, doesn't think the climate is changing.
Do you really believe there are people who don't know the climate is changing?
Yeah. I've talked with a couple of them. They think this warm spell is just part of a normal cycle.
Nope not a damn bit of difference.
For some reason I think we need to talk about this some more, seems there's still a little confusion here.
Maybe I was wrong?
[Removed]
Does the debate still rage on? I thought this had been settled. Should we take a look at this as well?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html
Perhaps today's Galileo is Georgia Institute of Technology climatologist Judith Curry or John Christy, a prominent climate change researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Try this one on for size.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/agreeing-to-agree
and this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html
“It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.” GKC
Another way to put it is: If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!
It's harsh, but that's just the way reality is in the REAL WORLD.
Not in the bubble-headed fantasy that many on this board seem to float around in. I really suspect dishonesty.
Third parties go nowhere without Instant Runoff Elections. But IREs and muti-party elections would put a stake in the heart of KingCons. Hence, the Con shills go silent over the IRE solution.
Pollution causes environmental problems, it's a no brainer that we have to quit polluting to solve the problem. But that bites into profits to Big Polluters, the 1% Kings who own the RepubliCon Cult. So Cons harp on the dubiousness of Global Warming, and science. After all, it gets cold at night and in winter!! Cons become the obstruction to the solution. Thusly their removal becomes the solution! More shill silence.
The solutions: Get rid of Cons!! The means: Get Out the VOTE!!
Ooooooooooo Voting? Quit being part of the problem. VOTE!!
http://www.gottavote.org/en/?choose-state=true
The truth has power without limit, the problem for many is that they have no control over it, many want the world to be different than it is so much they think they can wish it that way, the others are just lairs trying to hurt OWS as much as they can before we wake up and start taking action. None of them matter in the end, we have enough lies, more will do little, one by one truth makes sense, if you let it.
We have a time limit and an impending horror.
Normally I tend to shy from passivity. In this dire predicament, while I should be working on a project well past it's due date, I really need this election prosecuted with EXTREME prejudice! I've seen these go to the dark side too many times!!
Get out the VOTE!!
people are dying everyday because of us wrong doing. what climate change do you talking about? help yourself and your family first. help good people who surround you. help trash face people. and then change the World, wacko
Hard to work through the broken English, but I think I got it, yeah here it is FUCK YOU!!!
If you want to help vote out a Republican!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k&feature=youtu.be
thanks for the link
[Removed]
me too
[Removed]
not sure if serious or just an idiot
have you read the whole thread, still confuse?
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Yes. Let's all vote for the godlike democrats and have paradise! Stupid fuck..
Since when was fucking stupid? I think it's fun.
Let's all make sure the GOP return!!! oh yeah that's much better
Deliberately outrageous comparison. Persuaded by facts? You mean like how third parties ended slavery, obtained women's rights, child labor laws, social security and were the first to promote what eventually was adopted by Roosevelt as the New Deal?
Clearly, you're just trying to get a rise out of people by comparing third party supporters to climate change deniers.
You left out elect Bush that I think is their clearest and most significant accomplishment ever, the stuff you claim is bullshit none of that happen till the people who care put pressure on the people in power at the ballot box, not by throwing away their votes on bullshit.
As for your argument that "the stuff you claim is bullshit none of that happen till the people who care put pressure on the people in power" -- how did they do that? One of the founding principles of the Republican Party platform was abolition of slavery. The Republican Party was brand spanking new. Before the Republican Party there was the Liberty Party (a third party) that advocated ending slavery. This party evolved into the Free Soil Party, another third party. When the Republican Party was FORMED the Free Soil Party DISSOLVED because the Republican Party had adopted its platform. History is replete with examples of similar successes. Such platform issues don't appear out of thin air. When solid support is shown in a public forum for particular issues, changes in platforms have to be made in order to remain competitive.
Here is a list of some of the other things brought to us by third parties: http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/politicalsystem/a/thirdparties.htm
Yes, as you point out, parties do end and it is time we end the Republican Party, try to pay attention please.
Obama has been even worse than Bush on certain issues, as Noam Chomsky has pointed out. I already debunked the myth of Gore in another debate with you in a previous thread. Gore would have been just as likely to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. As VP under Clinton, they bombed Iraq and were involved in economic sanctions that killed countless children and were responsible for the signing of NAFTA, among countless other issues. From Gore's personal support of drug company greed that almost cost the lives of thousands of innocent AIDS patients in Africa to his support of mountain top removal. He made ZERO efforts to improve fuel efficiency which spurred more offshore oil drilling, and so on. I could go on and on down a list -- not marginal issues, either. Bush may have been the worse option, but Gore was a joke as well. Sorry to burst your partisan bubble.
You sound delusional. You also seem to have made huge leaps of assumptions that aren't based in reality.
The neocons were the problem during Bushs term in office. Gore was not one the neocons was he? You forget that.
You sound like an idiot. You should review your postions they are comical at best.
Peace
Nice name calling. Come back when you have legitimate constructive criticisms. Maybe then we can have an actual discussion of the facts.
NO!
You comments are blatantly untrue. Obviously designed to create cover for your criminal republican puppet masters.
I don't need to argue with you. Just wanted to get my comment under yours so anyone who sees your ridiculous opinion realizes someone is calling you on it.
Tired, old, partisan, nonsense. that is what your comment amounts to.
Peace, Shill!
come back when you have some proof
you have not "debunked?" anything when you tell me how Romney will be better or won't win if we oppose Obama, then tell who you think can win? or are you so great people hearing what you have to say is more important than things like CU? you want us to do nothing and leave the GOP and the 1% alone to run things, that's what I think.
You are basically full of shit, you make a bunch of bullshit claims with no evidence at all. :Like all cons you think if you just keep saying it some will believe it. I post as do others almost everyday about the crap the GOP is doing yet you nor any other third party dreamer even tries to defend them.
Gore would of never gone golfing after getting the 8/6 memo and 9/11 would have never have happened if Gore had been elected.
https://www.google.com/search?q=In+swing+states+vote+Obama+without+illusion&rlz=1C1RNAN_enUS460&sugexp=chrome,mod=6&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
This means the Chompster wants Obama to win but isn't all so crazy about him. Sort of how I feel, but I want to be sure that obama wins not only the electoral vote but the popular vote too just to shut the rabid right up.
[Removed]
I say the D and Rs are much the same, however I do NOT say vote for a third party, as that would be silly. I say do not participate in a rigged game that has only one winner; the 1% that own this place. It is VOTING that is broken,. the very idea, that we should give our power over to a proxy, or a surrogate, in the HOPES that they will do, what we would, is down right dumb. The fact is that we simple do not need to hand the power of our own will over to others, we can exercise it our selves in our communities,. we can build networks of communities and we can do better than the denial and delusion of the 4 year voting for rulers that we have inherited from past generations.
Your "facts" are; that we have already lost, and we should line up like sheep to slaughter,. and just pull a lever for the one of two evils that will fck us softer? With facts like yours,. "either the R or the D will win",. all hope is lost. Voting only encourages them, remove yourself from the systems that support the thieves and liars,. squat some land, grow some food, live free and ignore the death culture that is going nowhere.
But that's me, I could be wrong, maybe it's a terrible tragedy.. ,
I disagree, I think we can kill the GOP and take over the Ds.
"Climate change deniers and third party supporters: Is there any difference really?" Not in your little brain-washed mind factsy.
ahhh have you been reduce to insults and name calling, but still no actual argument to defend your childish reasoning.
your entire post is an insult to logic
go read GEO's comment at the top. He frames it nicely.
I have and responded i hope you saw it, within a few comments it becomes clear that "geo" has no desire to engage in discussion but wishes only to repeat the same brainwashed bull.
It would not matter if I did give you a coherent logical arguement, since you are hell-bent on using OWS as a tool to elect more dems.
Now if only you had one, where did you put that brain?
Good morning factsy, gearing up for another day of BS, I see.
I made a post so you can have room to make your case come on by.
'The NDAA, TPP supporters, and the dem supporters....is there is any difference?' Of course there is, so by extension of your logic....that makes your post illogical.
Here we see that NDAA would not have passed with only the Ds voting, but would have passed with near 100% support if only the Rs voted, this is how serious people make decisions they look at the facts.
This is NDAA 2013
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/39897
of the 120 nays do we even have to ask how many were Ds?
This repels indefinite detention:
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/39904
of the 182 yeas, how many Ds, how many Rs?
This one restricts spending in Aganistan to only what is needed to get out:
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/39906
of the 113 yeas, do you think we will find a Republican?
But here’s a real winner it stops us from reducing the nuclear weapons we have already agreed to:
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/39908
only 162 voted against that, should we see what the D/R count is?
I have been getting Project Vote Smart lit for over ten years before they moved from Corvallis, OR. They are a wonderful non-partisan organization, and just from their 'stuff', you could at one time make an intelligent choice for who to vote for. Anyway, who signed those into law???
No doubt your point being that Romney would not? or is that McCain would not have, see now there we have an honest disagreement.
No...my point is that the progression of neoliberalism transcends parties.
and reality doesn't matter, tell it to the people losing their homes...or wait and tell it to the old folks in the streets, it wasn't so long ago when they were filled with them, when Romney takes the retirement funds to put in his second car elevator at least you will have your transcendent shit.
[Removed]
Like all Republicans you would blame Obama for a rainy day.
And now lets move onto the Senate, where parties show their true colors....
Oh Snap!! 93-7!! Holy Shit!!
So sad a life that always looks for the worst in people.
Or just looks at the facts. Either/or.
Some of us judge them on actions, others judge them on campaign promises.
Keep up the great work as usual dude.
You mean like the actions that put Bush in the White House?
Yeah I agree with that, those who pull votes from anyone who could beat a Republican should be judged for their action, not their heart or words.
Only a paid shill like yourself could criminalize someone who votes for whome they feel best relates to their values, as opposed to one of the two corporate candidates.
Bahhhhh, bahhhhh....
your shit never changes does it you have argument so you run away
and neither does your "shit" ever change
jumping in to help out your buddy hc i see, did he shout down the hall at you? are you guys going to lunch later?
Actually, it has changed slightly over the past eight or nine months. It's gotten slightly worse.
On here.....agreed as the Presidential election grows near, it is worse, and perhaps I am starting to be part of the problem, but i will not let facts and his buddies silence me
now if only you had something to say..
You would not listen anyway factsy
yet you find another way to say "I have no case"
No, it is yet another way to say, 'you are too brain-washed.'
You are definitely not part of the problem. Quite the opposite.
Thanks.....BTW we haven't discussed the prize yet. Looks like I'm winning. ;-)
You know, I could try harder. I really could. heh heh heh
I did
didn't help
you have no respect for logic.
In no way are these categories related.
It was all Gandhi's fault
LOL
your logic is as on target as the other deniers, you make no attempt to address the fact that either Obama or Romney will win, just as others........oh what the hell is the point might as well talk to a wall
We should put Ralph Nader in prison and make Obama king of the united states!!!
drone strikes for everyone!!
In a cell next to Bush.
I agree Obama should be in a cell next to Bush.
How would you react if Bush assassinated 3 American citizens without evidence of committing any crime and without due process?
You are a hypocrite and it's hilarious to watch you act so irrationally. You used to have such good posts but you've been blinded by your hatred of republicans that you have lost your respect for logic.
Don't let your rightful hatred for repubs allow such terrible behavior from this president.
I'm looking forward to getting 3 downvotes from you and your 3 cronies.
Bush ain't President anymore. Lets keep his predecessor out. Stop serving Bushs party by attacking pres Obama during this election.
Look for the real progress he has made and agitate for more.
are you saying that Bush didn't and then some?????
I'm making a point about how you're only outraged about an issue based on party association.
I have watched this for many years and yes I believe we do have an enemy we can defeat, that it is working night and day to oppose all we stand for and i hope that we take the fight to the Republican Party and destroy it. I have never said that will solve the problems only that the problems cannot be solved by working with republicans when they stand only for the power of the 1%. I have always said killing the GOP is only the beginning.
let the republicans and democrats come here
they may decide to stay in Washington and keep on doing things like CU, we may have to do something, maybe upset the balance by knocking one of them off the sea-saw
Well, neither party will do anything about it because they are funded by corporations. I'm sorry you are too brainwashed to see this.
If they were on your side, they wouldnt be accepting corporation money this election.
They are. More of the same.
I heard this all in 2000, that's how Bush got in the White House, I guess you miss him.
[Removed]
There are lots of excuses as to how Bush got there, still if Nader had kept his word and stayed off the Florida ballot none of the other things would have mattered. Even better had he said "My God! We have a chance to elect the most environmentally friendly person in history at a time when the planet desperately needs to!!" Instead he said they get their money from the same place so screw them, and screw the planet. The whole thing about how they got their money from the same place he said over and over every time people like Michel Moore would beg him to say something about the two Gore and Bush.
Here on the site I don’t see too much danger of people making Supreme Court decisions, but supporting a third party I see that as a real concern, I see what that has led to in the past, I help Reagan by voting Anderson, then there was Nader and Bush against Gore, if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past we must remember them.
[Removed]
It looks that way too bad, ego kills us every time.
Hey speaking of the butter fly ballot, not so funny thing, I was running a "big dish" back then and watched a lot of back feeds during the recount, the lawyer that advised the lady who designed the butterfly ballot before each vote during the key first few nights, was none other than Ted Olson the future legal advisor to the President.
[Removed]
Oh this was around 11/6 or just after election when the key votes were taken by the county election commission long before the recount got big
I had large sat dish back feed is term for feed up to the network before edit and recast, yes Bush
Your boy Gore didnt transform into Inconvienent man until after that election. If was after they created their carbon credit company that he released that video. He is a rich uptight politician, who helped send all of our factories to China with ZERO regulations and hence ramping up global warming. You need to stop believing the hype with these government types and start digging a little deeper.
Your disdain for democracy is very telling of who you are actually working for.
He was out front at least as far back as 1986, you are either very uniformed or just a lair. I’m thinking the latter.
Then why the hell would he vote for sending all of our companies to a country that has ZERO regulations?
So now your point is that Gorte is not an eviromentals? Read the book he worte long before 2000 and tell me that, I guess the vote you speak of was NAFTA? Well i guess we can all be so perfect as you.
Ya, you hyporcrite, NAFTA and GATT. The two most devasting pieces of legislation the government has ever passed, in regards to environmental protection.
No one is asking for perfection. We just ask that if you care about the WORLD, then dont vote to allow our corporations to go set up shop in a country with ZERO regulations. All in the name of government bonds.
Stop listening to their BULLSHIT and start judging their ACTIONS. Anyone can talk. What do they DO?
Really? Worst then the Bush tax cuts? you're an idiot.
But I might as well be talking to ma climate denier or a wall.
You think the Bush tax cuts were worse for the envrironment than moving almost ALL of our factories out of the US and into a country with ZERO regulations?
Really? Really dude? Really?
When you're begging for bread in the street at sixty come tell me they weren't get your head in game dude stand up make a choice!
You want to make the case we were better off with Bush tell me when did he push to repeal NAFTA?
He didnt. The D/R parties signed NAFTA. But that wasnt as bad as GATT, which was also D/R.
Begging for bread and paving the way for factories to relocate to a country with no env regulations arent the same thing.
You never stop amazing me with your ability to take one subject and attempt to make some partisan point that has nothing to do with the political topic.
In this case you are comparing env regulation with tax policy. Claiming that lowering the tax brackets in the USA is worse for the env than factories with no env guidelines.
You must do this on purpose, because even for you, this is dumb.
you step in at the beginning with "your boy gore.." then call me partisan? well we do have one thing in common I never stop attacking the GOP and you never stop defending them, so I guess a healthy dose of partisan all around.
I doubt people divided over global warming
yes anyone who does not want OWS to get involved with the corrupt political system is a repub according to you, the "decider."
sometimes it matters more what you do than who you are, if you do not help Obama beat Romney, what you have done is help Romney no matter who you are
I am not here to win the battle...getting Obama re-elected at the expense of losing the war....getting the sea change in the way our financial, and political systems are run. This is a defiant revolution. By getting involved in the corrupt political system, we succumb to all of its mechanisms that have let this system proliferate as far as it has. I, as many others will not let us become stifled, and controlled by them. If you want to label me as a plant, troll, repub, or whatever else for my strong beliefs, feel free. I could care less.
keep helping Romney see what wonderful things the next court does
keep thinking the dems, or repubs will bring us to the 'promised land', and we will be in chains before you know it.
You have to twist things to not sound insane, I understand, but what part of kill the GOP and split the dems sounds like I trust anybody?
I am comforted that you "understand" factsy. "All hail factsy.'
oh thank you imitation being what it is and all, now if only I went around censoring people like you instead of spanking them with logic....
[Removed]
Did you really think people would never peek behind the curtain?
I count on it
WOW factsy, plus 4, you and your little make believe friends must be really pissed. lol
How clever. Did you get that from The Price Is Right?
You miss again, but I have to remember you are a little slow on the up take.
"A little slow," gee if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black.
And therein lies my complaint.
By referring to it as a "complaint", you are legitimizing their thinking that partisan politics is what it is about. It's not. They are either dem plants, people who are following their conscience (who I respectfully disagree with), or people whose brains are not firing on all cylinders. Take solace in the fact that this view of promoting partisan politics on here is not shared by the overwhelming majority of people nearer to the heart of this movement. 'They' know better.
Agreed.
Thanks, be prepared to be down voted. I'm toxic. lol
Heh heh heh. We're big kids, we can take it.
yep, my shoulders are bigger than my belly...well at least until Thanksgiving. lol
You're an idiot.
more reasoned than usual for you TM
I called you an idiot because you compare third party supporters with people who think climate change isn't real.
If you did any research, for example, Jill Stein is a firm believer in climate change and she is a third party candidate. She is also a supporter of the 99%
But please continue trying to vilify good people it only shows your true colors.
What happened to you dude? Your post here is shameful.
I know that Jill Stien has been helping get Romney elected since '92, I know that it takes a huge ego to say" I've never held office think I want to be President," I know that the Green party has made one promise to, the American people That i know of and they broke it, so as far as I'm concerned they are 100% lairs, at least till they explain what the hell happened to that promise.
lol you are an idiot. Are you sure money in politics and millions and millions of dollars funneling propaganda on tv had nothing to do with Romney winning governor?
Jill Stein really helped Romney in 2008 when he couldn't even make it past the primaries for president eh?
you do know Jill Stein supports OWS right? She actually got arrested for protesting foreclosures. She's actually really cool.
Go ahead and blame the people on your side. It's a sad reality about society. It even happened to Martin Luther King when he was stabbed.
so you say nothing about the promise that the Greens broke? Is it that only when the ds break a promise that you care, at least the ds keep one every now and then the Greens never have, so who is blindly following now? why do you not hold the Greens reasonable for promise they broke? But i tell you what I would even vote for a promise breaking green if that was the best chance to beat a Republican it's that important.
I'm sorry did the green party order bomb strikes, vote to invade Iraq, or vote to repeal glass steagall... no that was the D's and the R's.
Care to associate Jill Stein to my criticism for Obama and the GOP? What issue are you specifically trying to point out?
So how do you feel about someone running for President who has never held elective office?
How do you feel about someone running for president that bombs foreign countries and targets American citizens for assassination without providing an ounce of evidence of committing a crime, votes for the TARP bailouts to give Bank of America tax payer dollars even though the GAO audit showed the federal reserve loaned them over a trillion dollars and another 15 trillion to other big banks and corporations, or someone that reappointed Bush's Ben Bernanke, or someone that wants to continue the patriot act which is used to spy on Americans, or someone that passes the anti protest bill HR 347, or the republican jobs act that repealed regulations on Wall Street that were put in place after Enron fraud?
Do you want to keep playing this game?
Obama never bombed anybody till he was in office, what makes you thjink Jill won't or do just hate Obama so much you don't care if she does.
nothing in her platform about non-aggression
she's also from harvard but I don't want to sound like a collegist
"nothing in her platform about non-aggression"
That is a lie
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Jill_Stein_War_+_Peace.htm
End the Oil Wars that are killing soldiers and civilians, and draining our national treasury.
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were illegal
The deficit has been made worse by unconscionable spending choices: notably the 4 trillion dollars spent on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and trillions more spent on the bloated Pentagon budget, tax giveaways for the wealthy, and bailouts for Wall Street.
Instead of austerity, we can end the Wall Street bailouts, cut the bloated military and tax the bloated rich.
We never should have been in Iraq; we're still not out
Q: What are your views on this week's US formal withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
A: We are not out of Iraq--we should be out of Iraq and we are not. We never should have been in Iraq. We have spent perhaps $1 trillion, lost nearly 5,000 American lives, and probably 100,000 or perhaps one million Iraqi lives. It's an unspeakable shame that this war occurred at all. A war caused by lies and military opportunism A war that has conveniently secured some oil supplies for the US and the West but what a horrible price that has been paid for that illegitimate bounty.
We should not be in Afghanistan; no military solution
Q: What should US policy be regarding the war in Afghanistan?
A: As in Iraq, in Afghanistan likewise we should not be there. If we hadn't been training militaries in Afghanistan to start with 30 or 40 years ago, there never would have been an Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan is a symbol: military solutions are not solutions. They don't end.
Humanitarian aims in Libya ok; but not regime change
Q: What about the war in Libya?
A: We're going to see it's not over in Libya . You don't solve problems, you don't promote international stability and democracy by bringing in the army and the bombs. That does not create national stability. The humanitarian concerns were legitimate but those humanitarian aims were really cast aside very early. After NATO entered the fray it quickly morphed from protecting civilians to regime change. There was no legitimate international justification for that.
End our military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan
Before President Obama took office, the Democratic Party criticized Bush for killing thousands of people looking for weapons of mass destruction that never existed. But now their voices have fallen silent. Gov. Patrick is promoting the troop surges and engaging in shameless attempts to use the troops as props for his election year photo ops. He dished out upbeat descriptions of our military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. He described morale as being high, conveniently ignoring the fact that suicides among the troops had just reached record levels. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing Massachusetts $3.4 billion per year. That money could go a long way toward creating jobs here in Massachusetts. Rather than serving as a Pentagon propagandist and obediently sending our National Guard off for yet another tour of duty, the Governor of Massachusetts should be telling President Obama that we need to end the wars, bring our National Guard home, and heal our economy.
GP's Jill Stein: Obama’s 'Loose War Talk' Is Replay of Bush Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein is disturbed by the ever-escalating efforts of Obama and members of Congress to launch a war with Iran.
"A hallmark of a Stein administration will be respect for international law and a rejection of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war that Obama and his party have come to embrace. The interests of the American people are not served by illegal attacks on other nations based on hypothetical future transgressions. Yet President Obama is threatening Iran with attack by saying that 'all options are on the table'. It’s a terrible replay of Bush's run-up to the invasion of Iraq over the mythical weapons of mass destruction."
all wars are illegal
As long as frf is pushing for people to vote against Mittens and against all corpoRATist's - I don't care how he goes about it as long as he does not attack other supporters of the pro-humanity movements.
This should also be your concern - against the evil - those who are - are friends.
[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (3488) 17 minutes ago
factrfun,
lol you got owned by LesGetReal
stick to facts dude. When you post nonsense it only makes yourself less and less credible.
Maybe you meant to go to this website instead of this one
www.barackobama.com
Obama ran on the idea of increasing the war in Afghanistan. So it was in his platform. Big difference.
The Greens, being human and all are just like the Republicans and the Democrats when faced with keeping their word or doing what is best for their Party they choose their Party that's why in spite of a "safe state only" policy, Jill's name will be on the ballot in FL:
http://www.gpfl.org/candidates
One should look with eyes wide open at everyone.
I believe it was on ending the war in Afghanistan. The place 1st singled out for retaliation by the shrub administration and then left underfunded and undermanned for the task it was given.
Fact - Obama is leaving thousands of private forces in Iraq and put twice as many troops in Afghanistan as George Bush.
He increased the size of the war in Afghanistan after taking office in the white house. It's a fact. It was a platform stance to do so. Even my mom a die hard Obama supporter knows that and she used to loosely quote Obama all the time in regards to it... "I don't know why we're in Iraq... the war is in Afghanistan."
I'm surprised Romney hasn't praised Obama on his use of privatized mercenaries like Bush used.
The only promise that the Greens have ever made me was that in 2000 they would not put Nader's name on the ballot in battleground states, they did. That tells me if they had the bombs they would drop them no matter what they may claim, what they say has no bearing on what they do.
It was after the 2000 election that the Greens decided to adopt a "safe states only" presidential run in 2004. David Cobb was their nominee, not Nader.
Sorry I saw Nader say it with my own eyes in 2000, so they started lying back in 2000 and as far as I know they never stopped. I just looked at their web site they still blame every one else and take no responsibility for their actions in 2000. Is Jill on the ballot in FL or OH this year?
Are you suggesting that Ralph Nader, the 2000 Green Party nominee, agreed to only run in safe states?!? No way. I think you are confusing the 2000 and 2004 elections.
here you say the Greens were doing safe state when the link proves they are not, I never said I had a video I said I saw it with my own eyes if you don't believe me, then don't that's your choice, I already know that you are a lair as you do not defend your "safe state" statement
No, I did not say the Greens were doing safe state. I only responded to your statement re: Nader in 2000, nothing more.
[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6118) from Phoenix, AZ 1 day ago
The only promise that the Greens have ever made me was that in 2000 they would not put Nader's name on the ballot in battleground states, they did. That tells me if they had the bombs they would drop them no matter what they may claim, what they say has no bearing on what they do. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink
[-] 2 points by LetsGetReal (1032) from Grants, NM 1 day ago
It was after the 2000 election that the Greens decided to adopt a "safe states only" presidential run in 2004. David Cobb was their nominee, not Nader. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink
[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6118) from Phoenix, AZ 1 day ago
Sorry I saw Nader say it with my own eyes in 2000,
You can "bullshit" all you want don't change what I saw. Tell me is Jill filing for FL or not, now who's full of bullshit.
http://www.gpfl.org/candidates
You can claim you saw it all you want and that doesn't make it true. Where's the video?
I have no idea what Jill is or is not doing. I do know that Nader never agreed to, nor participated in any "safe state" bid.
that's like comparing florida to ohio
I saw him do it on several shows early on, he changed his tune quick enough, after he had collected some money from folks that believed him. In 2000. Do you know about the 2012 ballots in OH or FL?
Bullshit.
http://www.gpfl.org/candidates
Here's the link she is on the ballot or like all climate deniers and third party supports do the facts not matter to you?
This is about each person deciding for themself and I have decided to believe my eyes and ears if you don't mind you believe what you want ignore the lies of one party if that is what you have to do.
Where's the link to the video of Ralph agreeing to only run in safe safe states? That is the statement I challenged, not who is or is not on the ballot now. You are trying to divert attention from that issue by suggesting I said something about what the Greens are doing now. I didn't. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
factrfun,
lol you got owned by LesGetReal
stick to facts dude. When you post nonsense it only makes yourself less and less credible.
Maybe you meant to go to this website instead of this one
www.barackobama.com
Yes. And Rocky will be soon too, hopefully.
Im not sure who the Socialist Party is running, or the Socialist Workers Party. Im suprised they dont get more support these days.
so that whole "safe state only" thing is bullshit then, I wonder how much of what the Greens say is pure bullshit, I wonder if they are really just dying to bomb people.
Well we know the other two parties are, might as well give them a shot.
The thing with swing states is that you get both the corporate parties hammering at you with lawsuits and legal hurdles, unforeseen obstacles and straight up sabotage.
"What they say has no bearing on what they do"
Pretty much like just about every other politician on the planet.
Not so much Obama has kept pages of promises, the Greens have kept none.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/
I'm not denying he's done some good, don't get me wrong. My comment was a blanket statement expressing my distrust of politicians in general. In fact, I've spent a bit of time lately trying to figure out what separates otherwise like-minded (taking our country back, throwing the banksters in jail) and intelligent people like you and me, and I think it boils down to trust, though I may very well be wrong. You trust politicians (I'm assuming) and believe with the right combination of people in Washington, the country can be put back on the right path, even though 35 years of paying close attention may have suggested otherwise. I, on the other hand, harbor a scathing mistrust of politicians and believe they'll say anything to get elected and, once elected, cater only to special interests while paying lip service to the electorate. "Creating an international tax haven watch list" and "changing standards for determining broadband access" hardly compares with the NDAA and drone assassinations.
However, if I'm wrong and you don't trust politicians, why would you believe they are the answer? That seems contradictory. Am I missing something?
As I said it depends on how important you think the court is you apparently think a few more like Robert and Alito would be better than more like Sotomayor and Kagan or at least good enough so that you don't need to fight like hell for Obama's re-election I disagree.
C'mon, facts, insults aren't necessary. I wish nothing but the best for this country. We just disagree as to how to get there.
Shit. Gotta run somewhere. Back in half an hour.
"[-] -1 points by gnomunny (3409) from St Louis, MO 11 hours ago Hell, no. Holding a prior office should probably be a requirement for President. But personally, and I may be way off-base, I think this doom-and-gloom scenario if Romney gets in is just standard fear-mongering. As you know, the Pres has far less power than the average American realizes. He's mainly a figurehead. This is not to say the Repubs aren't evil. They most certainly are. I also stand by what I said yesterday about Romney's chances. It's technically a non-issue. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle permalink"
This thing about it doesn't matter all depends on what you think about SCOTUS and things like CU, I think it matters a ton who tha President is:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/
Now, don't put words in my mouth, facts. I never said it doesn't make any difference, I said I believe the doom-and-gloom is overblown. And I didn't say the Pres has no power, I said he has less power than the average American realizes. Subtle differences, but they are differences. I'd rather have Obama than Romney, but I don't believe it's the end of the world if Romney gets in. He'll do what he's told, just like Obama. I know it frustrates you guys that some of us aren't as alarmed as you, but relax a little. The world's going to hell regardless of who's Pres of this country. I want to remind you of something, too. I think we talked about it last year. I'm not clueless about politics. I started paying attention to it while I was still in high school ( that would be Nixon-era). By Clinton I was fed up and started paying more attention to my personal life. When I say I'm playing catch-up, that doesn't mean I'm starting from square one. I know politics rather well, which is why I got fed up with it in the first place. I think I also said last year that when I did pay attention, I called it right far more than wrong. Not just elections but other things, like the Clinton 'impeachment.' People around here scoffed when I said he wasn't going anywhere. I did get Obama wrong though, I thought it was gonna be a third term for Clinton (I mean a first term for Mrs. Clinton, hehe). I figured the Bush-Clinton cabal would be given another eight years.
you seem to be missing everything I have been posting, i constantly say that the Republican Party is hell bent on destroying us, I have often said the dems are only useful as a tool to remove Republicans from office.
Trust no one.
There may have been a time when other measures could have been taken, but today conditions are such that I simply do not believe that we can any longer tolerate the constant tax cutting that the GOP will push for till the country itself is dead.
What I don't trust most of all though is anybody who would be President and yet have never even held office of any kind, that strikes me as someone who wants to be King, that i really don't trust.
I haven't missed that (how could I?). I guess it's your trust of the Dems I don't understand. I remember Clinton.
I remember Clinton too and the raising real wages that came with him, but he did do some bad things too, it's just without him or now Obama there will be all bad and no good, i don't know if that's trust, what do you think of people who just want to start right out as President? Do you trust them?
Hell, no. Holding a prior office should probably be a requirement for President. But personally, and I may be way off-base, I think this doom-and-gloom scenario if Romney gets in is just standard fear-mongering. As you know, the Pres has far less power than the average American realizes. He's mainly a figurehead. This is not to say the Repubs aren't evil. They most certainly are. I also stand by what I said yesterday about Romney's chances. It's technically a non-issue.
[Removed]
Industrial and car pollution is CO and the carbon particulates are nasty as well. Not to mention heavy metal poisons from coal burning.
But that is carbon monoxide not carbon dioxide. HUGE DIFFERENCE my friend.
CO is what is being pumped non stop into the atmosphere. A step short of full combustion which would then be CO2. Thing is it acts the same CO and CO2 in many respects - in CO's case the bad aspects of CO2.
[Removed]
Sorry the only ones who have a problem with climate science - are the fossil fuel concerns/industries and they blatantly lie to the public.
[Removed]
Easy to solve the mystery - get rid of fossil fuel and go completely green ( no bio fuel is out also it is not green it pollutes the only green about it is the plant life it was made from ) We have the technology right now to end the need for any fossil fuel burning. Once the fossil fuel has stopped being used we can then monitor the environment for any significant changes.
The technology may be there but the viability at this point is not. We cannot produce enough energy for the world through "green" technology. Would you have us all live in huts and cave again? I personally feel the USA should be using it's own fossil fuel supplies(which we have enough for the next hundred years) while working on other energy sources. If we stopped importing oil the price would plummet.If we can't get it done in a hundred years something is wrong.
Whats wrong with a thorium reactor - what is wrong with a power plant that can burn either methane ( like from land fills or from sewer gas ) or burn hydrogen? BTW - that second power plant(?) it produces hydrogen as a byproduct of it's operation a part of it's design. So sorry your disparaging of green energy technology is a fail.
I'm all for that. We should be building nuclear plants out the ass but our fine regulatory agencies(who BTW rule by regulations that are not LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS) won't let us. We have the technology but won't/can't use it. Don't you think if it was viable those evil rich people would be making money off it?
Thorium not uranium - big difference. The evil rich are already set-up on their program and are not gonna change until they have to.
ROFLOL!!! I could ask for more proof, but why beat a dead horse?
[Removed]
[Removed]
I think you've made my point, thank you.
Yes, i can agree with you on that factsy.
Self denial is not of much help, either... you drive I assume?
[Removed]
thanks for the link, good one
Yes, it is an interesting statement - even those that rail against those in denial of global warming are in denial. The seas rise, warming lives... I have said this for over twenty years, while all the while even the most liberal environmentalist amongst us has denied this rise - "yes we believe it is warming, but no, there is no evidence of rise".... it's been rising since at least the 1920s. I know this because we're losing real estate.
The blame game is inconsequential - the seas rise; environmentalism is inconsequential - the seas rise; it's ecology that the "environmental-ist" is concerned about, and there is no 'ology' here because it's not a science, it's merely a concerned voice, a voice of activism, locked in a political match of winners and losers, those blamed and those blameless... we are ALL in denial, all guilty, and you're wasting my time.
When it all goes up in smoke, what consequence the match? And so, Science marches on despite all idiocy - it's our only hope.
Nonsense.
100% nonsense.
You are speaking only for yourself. and yourself alone.
The political blame game has gotten old; it's useless... I am speaking of the science that either will or will not succeed in regulating climate.
NO!
You are the one speaking of science as politics.
I reject it out of hand.
You have provided nothing but rhetoric.
I have provided many links over these months.
You?
Not so much.
It's too late to rein in greenhouse gases, if that is even the cause, and the blame game solves nothing, we need climate science. And I'm not sure that's possible, either.
Actually.
You're not sure of much of anything.
I think you would be better off hiding under the bed, so thank god those hippie waterbeds are out of style. They would leave no place for you to hide.
[Removed]
[Removed]
"the game's the same, it just got fiercer" quotes from The Wire
[Removed]
didn't mean that, it was my lame attempt at referring to the bab bab bab tactic being employed by porkie,
[Removed]
You have discover my hidden flaw, I am no saint.