Forum Post: I'm Not Giving in to the Tyranny of Greed
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 25, 2012, 12:01 a.m. EST by rpc972
(628)
from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I'm Not Giving in to the Tyranny of Greed
I Believe in Science, Facts, Justice & Democracy ~ That's Why I Can't be a RepubliCON!
Regardless of Republicon sabotage that has deliberately caused government gridlock, national neglect and a full scale depression.
Regardless of the Republicon hostage crisis we have suffered ever since we elected President Obama that has deliberately caused an erosion of trust in our government.
Regardless of omissions of Corporate media and the lies of Fox Lies that has deliberately caused a misinformed electorate.
Regardless of the cruel, pervasive and criminal transference of wealth from the 99% to the 1% that has deliberately made our great middle-class history.
Regardless of the Birthers, Deniers, Tea Baggers or Free Marketeers that have deliberately caused low-information Americans to rabble-rouse for ridiculous fallacies.
Regardless of the deliberate Republicon fascistic pledge of allegiance to Big Money from Wall Street to Oil to Arms to Insurance instead of America.
I still believe in America, all that is American and, although no party is perfect, I'm not giving in to the tyranny of greed. I still believe in democracy and I'm voting Democratic! Obama 2012!
Unite and Win! 2010, never EVER again! Register and Vote! Unite and Win!
Also: IN DEPTH: Who The Hell Is Saul Alinsky? He's not the man Newt Gingrich - and many of the right-wing extremists - think he was.
Read more: http://www.randirhodes.com/pages/rrnews.html?feed=393046&article=9687222#ixzz1l5Z67AkC
I'm starting to think Obama was the guy they put in there to calm the firestorm (that they knew was coming after Bush), and his job is to basically dress the erosion of our freedoms in a pretty ice cream Sunday. It looks liberal, it sounds liberal, but it's just as sinister as the republican ice cream Sunday, it just doesn't have a big giant "fuck you cherry" on top, instead, it has shards of glass hidden inside the ice cream.
Register, vote, and win what? ACTA (SOPA on steroids)? Okay, he wants really rich people to pay more taxes, but even if it does pass through congress (which it probably never will) it hardly compensates for the erosion of our freedoms these guys are trying to slip under noses.
"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson
it doesn't sound liberal
My vote for democrats is a "lesser of two evils" vote, and while I'll vote for Obama, it will again be because he's the lesser of two evils (and maybe with enough pressure we can move him back to the left). Nonetheless, real change doesn't come from garden variety political activism. I mean, you can accomplish momentary/superficial change, but without a "real" participatory democracy, the next generation will wind up right back where we are today. Moreover, individual liberty without any input into the economic aspect of your life, is only half liberty, and why should we be satisfied with half liberty?
I've been suggesting voting directly through the internet
major issues would be decided by the people
Baby steps Mr. Enthusiasm.
Let's get the rats out before we set up the ice cream parlor. No glass allowed, cherry on the house.
I guess I was in a pessimistic mood that day :)
I seen this great video done at an occupy rally in I think LA (done by a NGL lawyer) who really gave me the best perspective I think I've had since I started supporting OWS. He noted that only after years of massive protests did we pull out of Vietnam, and it was a republican president who did it. Obviously he wasn't endorsing republicans, his point was it really doesn't matter who's in office. Sure, the democrats do appear to be less crazy than the republicans, and I'll probably vote for Obama, but no political party will ever bring about change unless we force them to.
But this time we want more than just momentary change.
I'm with you on this, each of us, hopefully all together, can keep pushing until things become momentum toward a healthy society and system... Because it is not there now...
Generally, we as individuals can often become 'wait and see' on the sidelines... Unfortunately groups can come in and try to talk us into stuff with 'group' level rhetoric...simply because we as individuals tend to like to fit in, to be team players...
The problem with this if the real dialog is manipulated, it can prevent us from working together in common... So it is important we can somehow break through this postured media couched watered down imitation manufacture public 'dialog' and gets to something that is actually important and real to the well-being of each of us...
This is absolutely right, I think. We must vote for Obama to stave off catastrophy, but that is only the beginning of the battle! We are fighting for our survival here. We must bring to it the same will we brought to WWII.
It's more like "holding the line" (but they're all cronies, including Obama). If I thought otherwise, I might not be here, I mean, what motivation would I have? Democrats are just as eager to serve their corporate masters and deliver a new version of SOPA, they have no interest in restoring Glass Steagall (they're only interested in serving their bankster patrons), they won't withdraw our troops from the middle east, because our military is the muscle of our oil industry.
None of this will change unless things become really really bad for politicians who insist on maintaining the status quo. I'm not even sure how much politics matters, and I'm more inclined to think it doesn't matter at all. If this movement really gains traction throughout the entire country, then I think we have a good chance. It is definitely gaining traction, but this will take years of sustained effort. I mean, we might draw inspiration from places like Egypt, but we should also understand that our establishment is much more entrenched, much more sophisticated, and certainly very well funded.
You are absolutely right that they are much more entrenched, much more sophisticated, and much better funded!
I'm afraid that holding the line is what we must achieve for in the short run. It may be possible, through voting out the blue dog and "new Democrats," to improve the situation in Congress this year. In fact, I think it is quite do-able if we get involved in the political process. But on the presidential level I think the best we can hope for this year is to hold the line, and HOLD THE LINE WE MUST!
Agreed ... but we should also stop admiring Clinton (who really popularized the conservo-democratic alliance, or put another way, corporatist democrats). Remember, he signed the bill repealing Glass Steagall into law, and still won't admit he made a fatal mistake. Obama's administration is full of hold overs from the Clinton administration. Tim Geithner is a good example, he served under Treasury Sec. Rubin during the Clinton years (Rubin went on to head Citigroup, the recipient of tens of billions of dollars in bailout funds).
Again, the so called "fix" we got in response to the 2008 financial crisis, was co-authored by a Senator (Dodd) who was exposed for dirty dealings with Countrywide, one of the financial companies who caused the financial crisis (and then went on to head the motion picture association of America, the main proponent of SOPA). Of course Dodd Frank is just smoke and mirrors, it doesn't do anything substantive to prevent a similar crisis from happening in the future.
Obviously, none of these people come close to matching the criminality of George W. Bush and Cheney. I mean, hanging chads in the state his brother "coincidentally" happened to be governor, misleading the public with regard to intelligence, which embroiled us in a war against Iraq without provocation, where the main military contractor was Halliburton, a company who's CEO was Cheney before he became VP (of course just another "coincidence"). It's also interesting to note that Obama has thus far opposed calls to investigate the Bush administration for these crimes. It's also interesting to note how good the "establishment" is at getting their preferred candidates into office. There was no way they would allow someone like Al Gore to become president, or Howard Dean, or for that matter Ron Paul (not that I'm a Paul fan, but I'm just sayin, I have a better chance of winning lotto than Paul does of becoming President).
Gangsters is an understatement, these guys make the Gambino's look like a bunch of school children.
Yes! All I can say is that looking a the broad picture, in the short run, we must do two things.
Make CERTAIN a Republican is not elected.
Get rid of the Teabaggers and "New Democrats" in Congress. You are correct - Bill Clinton and the rest of the "New Democrats" pushed tha party way to the right. We need to push it left again - while at the same time not actually endorcing any party, and maintaining our independence as a movement.
That is how I see it.
It doesn't matter who get's elected, and Obama certainly isn't our friend. I mean, he's trying to slip another SOPA like monster under our noses (this time ACTA). Here's a good article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#Criticism
It doesn't matter who get's elected?
I don't think so ... no. I mean, I'd love to vote for a liberal, if one was running for office, but there's not (so I'm not sure whether I'll even vote). I'm a New Yorker, so I guess it doesn't matter much (Obama will surely win NY state), but maybe I'll vote in congressional primaries (if there are any), just to vote against incumbents.
That's your choice, of course, but I think if the left doesn't vote for Obama then Romney's going to win, and yes, I do think Romney would be worse - a lot worse.
You see, Republicans do what they're told.
So does Obama:
he United States signed onto the agreement in October. Ordinarily, treaties need to be submitted to the US Senate for ratification, but the Obama administration has adopted the novel (and, some have argued, constitutionally dubious) approach of declaring ACTA an "executive agreement" that can be adopted unilaterally by the executive branch, as it ostensibly does not alter existing US law.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) raised concerns about the constitutionality of this tactic back in October. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) joined the chorus of criticism this week when he called ACTA "more dangerous than SOPA" at a panel at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "It’s not coming to me for a vote," he said. "It purports that it does not change existing laws. But once implemented, it creates a whole new enforcement system and will virtually tie the hands of Congress to undo it."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/opponents-denounce-signing-of-acta-without-adequate-debate.ars
But it gets better:
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had rejected requests to make the text of ACTA public, with the White House saying that disclosure would cause "damage to the national security."[86] In 2009, Knowledge Ecology International filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request in the United States, but their entire request was denied. The Office of the United States Trade Representative's Freedom of Information office stated the request was withheld for being material "properly classified in the interest of national security."[87] US Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) penned a letter on 23 November 2009, asking the United States Trade Representative to make the text of the ACTA public.[88]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement
You know, it's the craziest damn thing. A lot of people here seem unable to grasp my point - so I'm going to ask again - how do we elect neither Romney or Obama in the next election? And, if we are unable to find a REALISTC way to elect neither of them, which would you prefer? You will probably say neither one. Do you see any problem with this reasoning? Does it seem like a revolving door that just gets you back to where you started? It sure does to me.
The problem is the two party system. Can we fix that in 10 months?
I get your point, and if I vote, sure ... I'll most likely vote for Obama (and I surely won't vote for a republican, although maybe there's a green party candidate or something like that; whom I'd feel more comfortable voting for). I know people will say I'm wasting my vote, but we don't even really have a two party system, it's more like a one party system with two different lines of rhetoric.
I agree, and whatever the outcome of this list of recomendations may be, it will stick strictly to the tenet of this movement that we do not endorse any specific party or politician.
My desire is simply to give visitors to this site a list of concrete actions they can take to help advance this movement - inclusive of any methods within the scope of the tenets of the movement.
My conception is that we on this forum, through dialogue, have gained a degree of insight into tactics that may be of benefit to those newcomers who would like to support us, but simply don't know how.
You people want a form of socialism where you don't have to work. What happens when there is nobody left to produce.
Nonsense! You think they don't produce anything in Germany? In Germany they have better social programs and better businesses than we do. If they can do it, so can we. The difference is, they just have control over their corporations while we have let ours run rogue.
From 1994- 2004 German GDP growth was a sickly 2.1%. This was due to an aging population, overregulated labor markets, and high labor costs. Because of this low growth, tax cuts and deregulation of labor markets were implemented in 2005 leading to Germany good growth since then. Most of the growth comes from exports.
Yes, and they still have universal health care and a lot of social programs Americans only dream of. They are, by the definition of any of our Neo-Con-Artists, socialist.
That is a crock.
Yes sir, boss! Us lackies are all about hopping to your tune. You just say the word and we'll all get right to work so you can sip your mint julip!
Hit a nerve?
In you, apparently.
[Removed]
some day the rich and greedy will be hungry, and food is cheap and easy to stock up on, let us prepare for the great time of suffering foretold in Isaiah "when a man shall eat the flesh off his own arm" to satisfy his hunger. When they are starving we shall get our vengenance. Let us not share our food in that day, just as they wouldn't share God's earth with us. Just as Joseph did in Egypt when he traded corn for land, I will trade one case of beans for one house.
That was great.
You come with us, but stay in the bus until we call for you.
Why am I craving pork and beans?
What we should strive for is Libertarian Socialism:
http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html
You got any of that snake oil?
How about Democratic Socialism?
There´s no snake oil.
DS or elements of DS could be established in the transition phase to a free society, but we should always strive for LS :)
I have an aversion to "Libertarianism." Too creepy with too many creeps.
also listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
hehe, I understand. But remember, today´s so called libertarians, the ultra right wingers, have in many ways hijacked the name. "Libertarianism" was used by anarchists/ socialists long before these Friedman and Rand - philosophies came into existence.
from wikipedia:
"The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social, published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque. "The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France." The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term "libertarianism" in "libertarian socialism" is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence "libertarian socialism" is equivalent to "socialist anarchism" to these scholars.[22] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin."
"Libertarian Socialism" is a well established term. No reason to be sceptical :)
What's wrong with democracy? Or Democrat? Has an even better Wiki.
Democracy is wonderful. In fact, democracy is, like I mentioned in the article "The Society We Should Strive For", the core of Libertarian Socialism / Anarcho-Syndicalism. But let´s not get into a discussion on semantics :)
Do you btw agree with my article and the video?
Thank you. I haven't given up either. That is why I am fighting for our right to fair representation. We have disproportionate representation in our nation because the 1% with the wealth have all the representation. I have proposed the Zero Contributions Campaign Finance Amendment posted at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org as a real solution. Do you think you could support this?
The money has to come out.
Campaigns will have to be publicly funded, like the bonuses to Wall Street executives.
We should have seized their assets, including real estate and transportation, and put them in a strip mall on Main Street with a fleet of Astros.
I feel your pain. I too have suffered greatly due to corporate greed. I have been working on this issue for seven years. Please see my website at www.campaignfinanceamendment.org. THank you.
Bubba, Simmer down.
Good for you! Why did you think it necessary to post it? If you think Obama and the Democrat party wil save you then you are lost. You are just as lost as a Mitt Romney and Republican zealot.
Hope a Dope I do not care who you elect we will be in the streets.Both Repub/dem time has past.
that would be repelican
try it. I'm sure you will find it slides nicely along the tongue . . .
The corrupt two-party-system leaves people of conscience no choice but to vote Obama in 2012, but we must not stop until we have rooted out all corruption from the Democratic ranks as well as the Republican; or until we have passed a Constitutional amendment to prevent this corruption from ever happening again; or until we have brought the criminals to justice, no matter who they are - not country club prisions - but real justice, the kind they hand out with impunity to the powerless; maximum security!
I can not in good conscience vote for Obama or any other candidate who has demonstrated their willingness to sell out the American people. How do you think you are going to root out the corruption from the Democratic ranks if you keep voting for corrupt people? How's that been working for you so far?
You know, I really agree with this. I mean, I REALLY agree with this!!!!! The %&%*^ question is HOW????
Unconstitutional government empowering tyranny! I agree completely. How can we consider supporting any of this government that has demonstrated such readiness to conduct itself in such a way?
The government (democracy) is not the problem, it is the solution. Corrupted government (democracy) is the problem. Who has corrupted government (democracy)? The 1/100th of the 1%.
Therefore who is the enemy of the USA (democracy), government or those who have corrupted government to their own ends, the 1/100th of 1%?
You tell me.
What is patriotism? An alligence to our 235 year old democracy, or to the 1/100th of 1% who would overthrow that democracy, and establish a tyranny to serve their interests only and enslave the 99.9%?
You tell me, my friend.
Corrupted government IS unconstitutional government.
It's becoming pretty well known that the government that continued after the civil war is comprised of many connections into the British arms manufacturers that financed the norths armaments and others backing the armies. That is the coruption that unconstitutionally empowered corporations starting in 1885.
The natural law of the constitution and the people that support it is the real thing and with such things in the hearts and minds of them. Truly informed democratic action, meaning free speech must be re established, and campaign finance reform, then tyranny stands no chance.
All of those things are constitutional.
Whoa...................................They had B.A.E. Systems way back then?
But hey..........that's just capitalism, and it was for a good cause, and they took green back dollars.
I don't see a problem with that..
Are you starting a cult?
What's this "natural law" bit?
I do agree 100% on getting the money out, but that will take time, and it's too late this year.
Such a nice, conservative, supreme court decision wasn't it, citizens united?
When it was enacted.....................not a peep from the "right".
Not a sound.
.They barely made a peep over Bush's enacting the Patriot Act either, until the intrusive parts touched their "junk".
Now there's a Democrat in the White House, and you're worried about the constitution.
Phoney!!!!!!
Hypocrite!!!
Natural law are functional rights making a peaceful and productive society.
shooz What's this "natural law" bit?
http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril17.html
Perhaps you do not like the constitution and would rather see it gone.
The constitution is subject to interpretation. by the SCOTUS.
It's been to the right and leaning harder and harder right for over 30 years.
What it needs, is a more liberal interpretation.
Not a fundamentalist interpretation, which would still favor the right.
That's why I feel we need to elect as many liberal candidates, from all sides, as we can.
Conservatism is ruining us.
The people are the final call on the constitution.
http://www.peopleforanewsociety.org/pfans/getting.html
Abraham Lincoln said: "Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right we hope and believe, is to liberate the world". Going further, he also said "This country with its institutions, belong to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it (Article V) or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it"."
Where were you when Bush enacted the Patriot Act?
Suffering obsufucation attack by internet operatives of the governmental infiltrations seeking to decieve Americans about treason.
Don't worry, it's for our own "protection".
Just like when that "I am not a crook", guy got away with treason.
They didn't prosecute, for the good of the nation.
Strange how treason works, when it's a (R)epelican committing it.
Reptiliocrats and demonocrians rejoicing in tyranny on fox 24/7 while birds fall from the sky and fish wash ashore.
macabre
Poisons will do that to living things.
You left off the spreading industrialized bee disease.
It was a poison that did it.
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to ask you what your vision of the ideal government is. We agree completely as far as stripping corporate influence out of the halls of power, but I'm curious as to where you would go from there.
I can show that our constitution is actually quite complete and would be adequate in most ways, IF government observed it. They don't and they misrepresent what they do. Its been 140 years since we had a constitutional goverment.
Free speech is abridged and so is freedom of the press. If we just fix that, I think we will be amazed at how much more functional democracy will be. That and getting the corporate campaign finance money out, limiting big donations etc. will complete the basics.
Obviously the first amendment needs to be revised so people with verifiable facts can go direct over network television at optimum times. A petition process to a state rep should work. Once the truth is out, then media has to try and live up to it.
How exactly do you mean that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are abridged? Are you talking about the crap that passes for news on most networks? We actually already have a public broadcasting network that offers an alternative to standard network news; it's called PBS (short for Public Broadcasting Service) and it operates for the most part free of corporate sponsorship. It's a highly decentralized organization in which individual member stations (which in turn are run by local nonprofits, communities, or universities) will supply a lot of their own content, with a few of the biggest stations (WGBH Boston, WNET New York, and WETA in DC) contributing a lot of the more interesting stuff including the NewsHour and Frontline. There are no ads and they run large parts of their operations off of small private donors. They haven't been perfect, but they've been light-years better than most commercial TV stations.
If you could somehow get the update frequency of CNN or various Internet outlets and marry it to the journalistic quality and depth provided by people like the NewsHour team and Bill Moyers, then that would be truly amazing. I brought up PBS because it would seem to be the logical place to start with any plan to build a completely independent news network (because it already is an independent network with a fairly strong base in the communities in which it operates and an independent program pipeline).
What I would advise you to do if you're really interested in this issue is start on Change.org with an online petition addressed to the head of PBS to staff a completely independent wire service and correspondent network of its own and to work with affiliated TV stations to obtain additional 24-7 news channels so that stories can be broadcast as they come in from the wire service.
On top of that, I would look into fundraising platforms like Causes; identify PBS as your nonprofit of choice, and see how many people you could get to donate a few dollars here and there to fund the start-up costs and continued staffing of the wire service and network offices. That way, your request (which I'd figure would be quite expensive to implement) would come with an at least partial funding source, and I think that would go a long way toward getting it implemented.
Money makes speech have value. Speech vital to survival cannot be shared.
ARod1993How exactly do you mean that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are abridged? Are you talking about the crap that passes for news on most networks?
Yes, media is corrupted. I've got lots of experience with PBS and they are not for the people. I've been a public access television member for 20 years. Big problems there, you cannot get out of your cable region.
Local newspapers reporters have been effectively gagged to stop them from even talking about lawsuits I've filed.
We need to revise the first amendment so people with verified info can get it out widely. A limited group with a petition and verifying testimonials submitted to a state legislator should be able to get national broadcast. This would be limited to things that effected all states and all citizens.
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a republic. And IF the constitution had been followed we wouldn't have the mess were in now.
The definition of a republic is democracy. Stop regurgitating Libertarian talking points and start thinking for yourself.
republic |riˈpəblik|
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
In a republic you have a representative to vote on your behalf. A TRUE democracy has no use for representatives as you as an individual would vote for yourselves on all topics. Democracy and republics are similar but not the same. If we lived in a democracy we wouldn't have an electoral college. We wouldn't need one.
There are two different forms (at least) of democracy One is representative democracy, and the other is direct democracy. One form is not "truer" than the other. Both fall under the definition.
IF the constitution had been followed we wouldn't have the mess were in now.
YES!
It's been 140 years since America had a constitutional government.
First, take a realistic look at what Obama has done, and not done, and I think you may realize that there really isn't much difference between the two major party candidates. (That's why they formed their own debate commission to keep the public from hearing much from third party candidates) Recognizing the lack of meaningful differences helps move past the fear that the other guy would be so much worse. There is a difference between the two if you listen to what they say, but not when you look at Obama's actions. Believe what he does, not what he says.
I think the fear of a Republican president also keeps many people from openly criticizing Obama, and this failure to speak out against his actions helps provide cover for corruption while making you a participant in your own oppression.
This year, voting for a third party candidate is largely a symbolic act, but an important one I think. The Democratic party heads have no fear that that the party members won't vote for Obama despite his poor performance in office. Don't reward him for betraying you. Reward a candidate who stands up for your values with your vote and your efforts.
Chris Hedges says something to the effect that change never comes from accommodating the power structure, it comes from frightening it, (non-violently).
Governments only stay in power by the consent of the governed. We need to weaken the supports that keep the corrupt in power. The Republican-Democrat feud is one of those supports. We need to reach out to conservatives to band together in our common interests. We have to have a functioning democracy for our differences to be anything more than idle debate.
We will need focused acts of civil disobedience to bring attention to injustice, and we need to stay non-violent. The outcry over the pepper spray incident was due to the obvious peacefulness of the protestors. We need to act in such a way that the police and military will refuse to help the corrupt quash us.
"This year, voting for a third party candidate is largely a symbolic act, but an important one I think."
Do you really think that voting for a third party candidate won't mean a shoe-in for the right wing uber-corporatists?
The Supreme court will likely (almost surely) see at least one member retire over the next 4 years. Do you actually believe that Obama would replace that person with the likes of another Scalia or Roberts or Alito or Thomas? Don't you think the right-wing will do precisely that?
Do you really want to play with the possibility that Roe v Wade will be overturned, that Citizens United will be expanded, or any one of a dozens other laws will be changed to consolidate corporate power, expand the power of the military or take away you civil rights?
For all the disappointment Obama represents, he has already placed Sotomayor and Kagan on the court. He will not likely appoint a fascist. But the other party will, 100% sure.
And voting for a third party candidate helps make that more likely. Symbolism should not trump reality. And the reality is that we are in real danger.
Obama does not deserve my vote and he will not get it.
Then you give it to Romney. Does HE deserve it?
Of course I don't give it to Romney. I will vote for Rocky Anderson who left the Democratic party last year saying '(t)he Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party.'
https://www.voterocky.org/node/1
By voting for a third party candidate who has zero chance at winning, you are effectively splitting the vote and furthering the chances for Romney or Gingrich to win. It amounts to an abstention. And as I'm sure you know, an abstention is a vote for the majority.
And while I understand - and share - your deep disappointment in Obama, The supreme court's makeup is a stake. I won't add my vote to the republitards who have vowed to repeal Roe v Wade (and whose previous appointments created Citizens United), which is exactly what I would be doing, by default, by squandering my vote on a non-electable third choice.
I do understand your line of reasoning, which many people share. Others of us see this trend of voting for the lesser of two evils as part of the problem.
What would you think of encouraging people in red states to vote for Rocky, or another third party candidate? In Utah, for example, one could argue that voting for Obama is pointless because the Republican always wins there.
That's a really interesting idea. The problem arises when people don't see it as a protest appropriate in a red state, and do it in a blue state, too.
I've seen the Left lose before for similar reasons, in 1968. The result was Nixon. and nearly six more years of war. Had we not abandoned the democratic party then, and instead supported Humphry, the war would have ended much sooner, and perhaps the scurrilous Southern Strategy might have been stillborn. The schism that was generated might never have given rise to the mindless jingoism of a Reagan, and strarted us on the road we find ourselves on today.
I have addressed these same issues over and over here. If you bring something new to the table we can talk about it. If you can't imagine genuine totalitarianism, I can't help you, you'll just have to learn the hard way.
Evidently I haven't followed your posts closely enough to know your views on the subject, so I answered what I thought was a genuine question.
Yes, I can imagine totalitarianism and it is frightening. If I am understanding your point correctly, I would say that where we disagree is that I think totalitarianism is equally likely under Obama as under one of the Republican candidates.
We have Obama. We do not have totalitarianism. Americans have been free for so long that it is hard for us to truely comprehend the end of freedom. We are not there yet. If we have another election of the Republican front for the 1%, we will be. Especially after the creation of this movement.
There WILL be retaliation. This is NOT a game. Once you start you can't go home again ARE committed.
Now, tell me if you want to shun moveon.org?
It is only since Occupy started that there has been much public protest or debate about the corporate control of our country. Obama has taken us one step closer to totalitarianism by signing the NDAA.
I agree with you. There will be retaliation and this is not a game. There is going to be pain involved. I know that.
And yes, I will shun moveon because I don't think they serve the people. I like some Democratic candidates. I support my Rep Martin Heinrich who is running for the senate this year. He is one of the few who voted against NDAA.
Look, I understand your fear. I understand why you are going to vote for Obama. I don't agree with you, but there are bound to be those sort of differences among us. I don't want to make it an issue that will divide us from our common goal.
Well, that is a very rational outlook. Unity is what we need to strive for to our upmost ability. I am just passionately expressing an opinion concerning something I feel passionate about; but in the end we must all grapple with these issues ourselves, and one way or the other, WE MUST WIN.
I'm glad to hear that. I agree with you that it is an issue many of us grapple with and good people can arrive at different decisions.
I'm with you on getting our country out of the control of the big corporations and into the hands of the people.
Together we will make this happen.
I feel exactly as you do. The damn candidates play us like a fiddle in every election and they are all meeting behind closed doors like chummy buddies laughing at us after the elections because ultimately it really doesn't matter to them who ' wins'. It's a game to them just like their ivy league debates were- the only difference is they get paid a lot of money to play as debaters. I personally don't think anyone should vote and I think that most powerful message that we could send to America today is to NOT VOTE!!! and don't watch the debates, etc...( they keep track of how many are watching) IF YOU MUST VOTE, we must agree on a third party candidate to enter on the ballet. Superman? We can't even trust the bean counters at the polls. They are as fixed as a Miss America Pageant or the Golden Globe awards. The republicans wanted Obama in office. WHy else would McCain choose Palin as his running mate? GET REAL! They wanted to pigeon-hole Obama , a Harvard black man, as their scapegoat while also proving that African Americans are not qualified to run the country- regardless of education. I will NOT VOTE in this election until I have someone worthy of my vote.
" YOU ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR US, AMERICA DESERVES BETTER so LEAVE NOW!!!"
Have you checked out Rocky Anderson?
http://www.justicepartyusa.net/
I'll be voting for him.
I've been dealing with politics for decades and I have this simple observation to relate: when you get in the pen with the pigs, you're going to get dirty. And this one: perfection only exists in lies and delusions. And this one: when assholes lose because they suck they just mess everything up so nobody can play. And finally this one: in every group of people there is always a bad apple. I'll stop, but there's more, like the exception does not make the rule. Done. OK, we have to get the money out of politics. We can't have honest government with legalized bribery. And if a politician is honest, the bribery makes it unfair.
i like the pithy observations. and i'll add this one: the exception swallows the rule.... i also agree with you 100%, but my question to you, in earnest, is how can we change it apart from a bloody revolution?? the lobby money is the crack to the addict, and, like the addict, it is remiss to change until it hits absolute bottom--like a near death experience required, which is what a bloody revolution would usher in.
Sexy
Drop the bloody revolt, do you have any idea what a Blackhawk can do?
They have the guns (money), we have the numbers (votes). Money is only good to buy votes. Votes trump money. Get everyone to vote!
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER again!!
a blackhawk is no match against some very smart people. we've observed repeatedly that voting doesn't work, and all our candidates are shit, besides. what's the (supposed) definition of insanity? vote, try again, vote, try again. it's a treadmill. and democracy an illusion or perhaps mass delusion. vote somebody on one premise and then they change their mind, or get bowled over, or never get around to it, or let the proposal be diluted to the extent it has no teeth. hey,,, it took the french a few decades until they finally brought out the guillotines en mass.
It's all ALL a choice of lesser evils, perfection does not exist. Get off the horse, you know where it leads.
the horse will take us to a better place. nothing else will do that. no elected politician will ever achieve it...
Whatever gets you through the night.
I want real change.
me too, for sure, but it's clear to me nobody's effectuating it and also, that nobody will or can (because the darned lobbies and money in politics)
[Removed]
Obama was elected in 2008. He had a Democrat majority in congress for two years. Two thirds of the House were Democrats! You could pass anything in that environment. What was accomplished?
Sorry Dawg, Liebermans and DINOs don't count. And then there was/is the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster. And the GOP-McConnell-led Jihad-War declared against a sitting President of the United States. Treason for which they should be GITMOed!
Nevertheless, President Obama managed to pass the first progressive reforms in health care (in over 60 years), Wall Street, womens rights, children's rights and many other areas; end the fraudulent Bush war in Iraq, get Osama bin Laden, save our auto industry, and end the massive losses of jobs that, among many other disaster, Bush handed him like a hot potato.
All while evading constant sniper fire, improvised explosive devices, ambushes, heavy artillery fire, and suicide bombs from a fanatic, rabidly hostile Republicon enemy. Pretty fucking amazing.
Well I havent voted the corrupt two party system since Ross Perot, the american prophet who foretold all. But since Ron Paul is running republican I will vote republican one last time. Remember, that when Abraham Lincoln ran for office, he was a 3rd party candidate, Republican even, and he won the hearts of the people. But come what may Im stocking up on guns, ammo, food and water, and seeds, and clothing, looking for land in the country, etc...
Please remember us when have so foolishly perished.
Here's the problem though...
There are deep areas of concern on both sides, so it is important to focus on specific ideas, otherwise two party bickering just keeps going on and on....
I'm not quite sure the statistics of successful policy being implemented by continuous two party bickering, do you?
Look, there are two general types of ways to look at issues, almost like two fundamental personality types if you will, we are trying to rationalize our actions and approaches, even though we may come from different mindsets...
So are there serious problems with republican policies, yes... Are there serious problems with democratic policies, yes... and although I agree that the types of problems in some republican areas, some slash and burn capitalist themes, anti-ecology themes (or forum infiltration, etc) is very inappropriate, they are still people... People can get misled and confused... not being misled and confused in this society, is extremely rare...
I understand the spirit of what you're saying, but we also want to somehow overcome 2 party bickering so that we can come together and agreer, so we want to try to discuss on specific issues if we can....
Underlying the 2 party, 3 party discussions are fundamental breakdowns with how we engage issues that have not been addressed... it's a problem...
Not giving in to the tyranny of greed begins with the generosity we express from a heart of compassion; not with creating a mythological evil "them" to blame.
Nice!
"""""Regardless of the Birthers, Deniers, Tea Baggers or Free Marketeers that have deliberately caused low-information Americans to rabble-rouse for ridiculous fallacies""""""
You must be thinking of the 2008 Presidential Election in which we anointed an affirmative action President. He was elected by a bunch of Elitist White Liberals who thought they would be charitable and give the Presidency to a Black Man to be their puppet. He was elected by a bunch of, almost 100% of minority voters, who would have voted for Hitler and his policies as long as his skin was dark. And last but not least he was elected by a bunch of people who believed in bumper sticker slogans and chants and though with this guy's promises, somehow their lives would be just so much easier. Union people who knew he would side with them against 'evil employers". Government dependents who thought maybe he would get them more in their monthly checks, entitlements, etc.
I will say this. He really did do a great job of increasing our national debt by 5+Trillion. He touched off the beginnings of socialized medicine and having a society in which it is great if you get a bellyache or a common cold. And he has started up the emotions of the uneducated,common sheeple with envy of the so called "wealthy" resulting in some wonderful class warfare. And NO I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, nor do I agree with a lot of their beliefs. Socially I am pro-CHOICE on many things that don't jive with bullshit "Conservative Christian Republican values". Abortion, drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. should ALL be a "free peoples" CHOICE. And aside from the greatest friend I will ever have, I am closest next to a Black man, and have dated Black and Latino women, a couple seriously. So take your "race card theory" and shove it. you won't catch a black man voting for a white man against a black man REGARDLESS OF POLICY, yet whites are still considered the "racist" ones.
TROLL ALERT!
So, you crawled into a hole sometime before the second week in November 2000 and you didn't come out until sometime after the second week in November 2008!
Dude that's awesome! How was that?
I can see why you have your shit all fucked up. Details! Details!
What areyou talking about? that made absolutely no sense.It served no purpose and the intentions of it are impossible to see. Typical of your entire OWS "movement".
And that's why you are a Con.
Because you babble nonsensical garbage, I am "a con"?
[OK, I'll try to be as simple and clear as I can for you.]
Yes, you're a Con. Because as studies show, Cons don't exercise cognitive reasoning (think) so they lose the ability and suffer a lowering of intelligence. Ideas you are unfamiliar with don't make sense to you, and you parrot Con talking points, so you're a Con.
I will, if you like, give you another chance. Perhaps the "hole" is inaccurate and confuses you. Maybe it was an extended adventure in the wilderness, or maybe you were comatose, during the time between November 2000 and November 2008 which accounts for your ignorance of the various events involving our economical debacle which happened before President Obama was elected. I'd still like to know what it was like to 1.) go through a complete news black. And 2.) emerge from the blackout into yet another Republicon caused shitstorm.
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!
Sounds to me like you are assuming that I really do not like Obama, that I must be one of those people who "joins a side" and sticks to it like wet to water. Well if you are assuming I liked George Bush's policies, you are sadly mistaken. But that is very typical of people who live by some GROUP'S agenda. You assume that because I don't agree with one, I must be brainwashed by another. Nice try.
So now you get it? Or you just change talking points?
Doesn't matter, you're just reciting RW talking points anyway.
Recrimination, the old stand by. Accuse the other side of doing what they bust you for doing all the time. Obeying authority. But that's Con MO, not Lib, dummies. We always question authority! Your bosses set you up!!
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!
Wow you people are so very presumptuous. Too bad life isn't working out for you to well and you want to- IMAGINE you will be able to- change it!
"...I am closest next to a Black man, and have dated Black and Latino women..."
That phrase reminds me of an old sixties slogan: "One of my best friends is a Negro." If national origin, ethnicity, or race truly mean nothing, there's absolutely no reason to bring them up.
I 'bring them up" only in advance of being told that the reason anyone doesn't like Obama is that he/she is "racist". It is a programmed response from the sheeple.
We are living under the tyranny of king Obama and his appointed czars. America, where are you now? Don't you care about your sons and daughters?-Monster, Steppen Wolf.
Why would you want to vote for the guy who has accomplished nothing.
The Economic stimulus package= Failure Released the Strategic Oil Reserve= Failure Green Energy= Failure
He almost got us involved in another conflict. His plans have only pro-longed the recession
I don't care if he's an Ass or and Elephant. I'm voting for Rommny because he has business experience and is a overall good guy.
Let's get this straight. We are not in a depression, far from it. Unemployment during the depression was at 15%. We are at 9%. Another interesting fact during the height of the depression less than 1% of the population was on Wellfare , now that number is skyrocketing.
In a sense, you could say Hitler had a long list of accomplishments. Still...I wouldn't vote for him.
That has nothing to do with what I said. I was highlighting what Obama failed at,and the positives about Romney and why I am voting for him. Where Hitler came into play I have no Idea.
But yes Hitler had a long list of accomplishments. His most impressive is of course he is responsible for the deaths of 50 million people while Germany only lost 2 million.
I can smell a fascist a mile away.
What gall, to post a comment like this under the username America921. You apparently forgot which side we were on in WWII.
I never said I supported Hitler or the Nazis. HitGirl made the comment that Hitler had a long list of accomplishments, never said they were good.
I'm sorry, I didn't see the irony when you said that Hitler had a long list of accomplishments. The problem is then that you demonize Hitler without realizing that Fascism is really, essentially just the blending of corporate power with government.
That is the essential definition of Fascism, as defined by its creator, Mussollini, and this is exactly what your "overall good guy" Romney stands for.
So perhaps you can see the reason for our confusion.
Good for you douche sack. I'm sure your mother is proud of what she raised.
wall street is sick. you're such a loser get a job, vikram pundit and jamie dimon are studs.