Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The Establishment party has the only two choices

Posted 1 year ago on Aug. 7, 2012, 9:56 a.m. EST by alterorabolish1 (569)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I come on the forum this morning and am called a Republicon Shill, Odin and hchc are attacked and smeared. Many still believe that the dems policies are better, and that our goal must be to prevent repubs from getting in power to prevent the horrors. The horrors are already here and there will be more of the same!

Reality is that one of the two establishment parties will win. Of course they will. Please don't expect me to go along with this game, I'm looking for a different game.

The word...LOVE... is a game changer and I hope millions of people write in LOVE on their ballot in November.



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I, too,have been called a right-wing zealot (not so nicely), a RepliCON, etc, etc, though nearly anyone, who has bothered to read my posts, knows that I am an anarchist with Marxist leanings.

The shills want us to vote their way, and if we don't agree, apparently they'll send us off to some camp someplace, where we can learn our lesson and vote the proper way.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21346) 1 year ago

You are the farthest thing from a Republican or right wing zealot, as is Odin. Perhaps the accusers are not familiar enough with forum posters.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I find the whole thing ludicrous, but indicative of the partisan mentality on either side. I have nothing against people voting. I may vote, but all I ask is for the partisans to stop their constant stream of propaganda.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (21346) 1 year ago

They are failing to see that there are some people who truly believe the current political system needs to be revamped and these same people can either be to the right or to the left. If they familiarize themselves with people's postings over the long period of time we've been here they'd know who's who.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Yes, the people on the right accuse me of wanting big government, but the ideal end of Marxism is an anarchic state, in which no hierarchical government is necessary.

The way I see it, however, is the right wingers want ever increasing government to control all aspects of people's personal lives like sexual preferences, marriage rights, conception rights, abortion rights, etc, etc, etc and they want that same government to chase the hobgoblins of American paranoia around the globe.

The irony is I truly want no hierarchical government, while the they want an all-pervasive controlling government.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21346) 1 year ago

Well put. The right wingers are truly the ones who want to control everyone, mainly by controlling everyone's pocketbook.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

As Che Guevara said you can't separate economics from politics; they're one and the same.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17823) 1 year ago

Politics, is just our individual interface with the World around us.

We are all partisan.

You can't escape that simple fact.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Hopefully the majority will choose to be partisans of the truth, where ever it may be.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17823) 1 year ago

One can hope for nothing more.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I'll go along with jrhirsch; my feelings exactly, though of course the question is, as Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth?"

Since really no solid answer satisfies everyone, we could all agree to agree on some basic points and call that agreement, for our purposes, truth.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"Truth can only be seen from every angle at every point in time. It has four dimensions, not two sides."

[-] 2 points by shooz (17823) 1 year ago

There are no absolute truths in politics.

Nor should there be.

Don't believe everything you hear and read, and only half of what you see. With todays editing capabilities? Maybe not that.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

There are no absolute truths, unless one believes in God, which is why I quoted Pilate's response to Jesus: "What is truth?"

I believe in very little about the world, even the results of my perceptions, but I do believe that if humans want to form a society, in which all people are fairly equal economically and politically, people of various political persuasions will have to come together and agree to agree on basic points.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17823) 1 year ago

Don't be silly, of course there are absolute truths.

Death and taxes. The Earth will continue to revolve and rotate for the foreseeable future.

We already do agree on some of the most important points.

Who said we didn't?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Yes, and the earth, barring any human "accidents," should continue for at least until the Sun begans to expand and incinerates all living creatures on the planet.

I'm not sure about death, since if you accept Buddhist thoughts, the I is only a continuation of perceptions. Taxes, well, barring outright revolution, we'll probably continue to pay taxes, but you're right, we have started to agree. We probably even agree on certain inalienable rights, which havbe been much curtailed.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Silencing people with different views is not an appropriate use of our time. Better we focus on convincing all OWS supporters to agitate for the change we need to create the new system of govt.

instead of focusing on who we will vote for in the old corrupt system perhaps we should be presenting the new system as an alternative.

Perhaps we should devise strategies that partisans might embrace. Rather than attack this politician, or that party, or the whole system. couldn't we focus on building up rather than attacking, & tearing down.

Lets be inclusive and tolerant of all opinions. This might bring more to our movement.

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The first step is education of the workers. That is rarely accomplished through personal attacks or ridicule; it's done by demonstrating how the system is designed not only to deceive workers, but to hasten their exploitation. Only when enough workers become convinced that their participation in the current system is futile, will they begin searching for alternatives. At that point the next step is agitation. The focus is to unite workers into a single front pushing at the current system from all directions, until the class-based society self-destructs.

Successful revolution, especially non-violent, cannot be rushed, it can only be nurtured.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Oh so the 1st thing is to get the workers "not to participate in the current system"?

I can't agree with that. Ifwe remove all these progressive workers from "the system" we will be handing "the system" to the 1% plutocrats.

No? Thats not what we want. How do we avoid that?

[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, that's not what I wrote; workers will continue to participate in the system, even though they know it may be in vain, but concurrently push from other directions for radical reform, just as OWS is doing now, pushing within the system, though sometimes at the fringes, not because the protests now accomplish so much, but because they are building a unified front among various groups that will eventually become large enough to force change.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Aight 'den! I can agree. We must grow the movement! be inclusionary. Protest and find new creative ways to push on the system of exploitation.

More & more strategies will emerge if we embrace & tolerate more opinions.

It's the only way.

[-] 0 points by infreeman (-7) 1 year ago

You might as well just close up shop and join ranks with the Tea Party. Even a two year old can see that OWS is finished from the start

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Still growing. Will take years to implement a new system not controlled by the 1% plutocrats.

Your republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressives.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

I was called a liar later today and someone claimed I really wanted some sinister motive.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

Probably rphwhatever. He/she appears to be a DNC plant.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I get called a republican by the same 3 people all the time for speaking out against the wars.

It's pretty funny actually. I don't know who they're trying to convince when they do that... me or themselves.

Their words are just slander to try and dismiss those that oppose their views.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I find it amazing that those of us, who lean far to the left, are called right-wing nuts, Republicans, etc, because we don't support Obama. The posters apparently only see the world in two dimensions: Democrat and Republican.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

For my part I prefer to state that anyone attaching Obama/dems unfairly are "SERVING" the republicans.

We live in a duopoly! That's how it works, I ain't makin that up. We are faced with an election. If you truly want to create a new system please recognize that we must keep the republicans from taking any more power. We must get progressives to replace as many conservatives as possible.

We need to do this because Dems are more likely to support the progressive policies we need to lay the ground work for the new system.

So obviously we cannot serve the republicans by criticizing the party (Dems) they is closer to our philosophy and supportive of our agenda.

There's an election in 87 days. Hold your fire and open up on all pols after the election.


[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The key word you used was "unfairly." Various people of differing viewpoints may define fair in a number of ways; what you consider unfair, I may consider perfectly fair. Therefore, if solidarity is the goal, the name callers will probably find their efforts more productive by resorting other methods.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Granted, but we are entitled to our opinions. Toleration is about accepting different opinions.

My opinion is: To create the best environment for the creation of a new system we must keep republicans out of power, and elect progressives. Further, in this duopoly, attacking the dems (even fairly) helps the repubs. And therefore hurts the goal of laying the legislative groundwork for creation of the new system.

Do we disagree?

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

No, I believe Democrats are fair game as well. After all they bill themselves as the progressive party. If they fail to follow a truly progressive agenda, they deserve to be criticised.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And I have criticized Dems as well. It is their caving in to vote for conservative policies that has allowed this plutocracy to exist. Their spinelessness and their moveto the right (like the whole country). Their that is criticism!

No doubt.

But if we want to keep the main plutocrat force (repubs) out of power we should refrain (during the election) from serving repubs by attacking dems.

During the election we should educate that Republicans ARE the problem and agitate all pols for the progressive policies needed to correct the conservative damage, and lay the ground work for the creation of a new system.

Dems will speak in support of OWS progressive agenda and once in office we ratchet up the criticizm/pressure.

There's an election in 87 days. Lets not serve the republicans who proudly trumpet the support of conservative policies that benefit the 1% plutocrats.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Exactly. How else can you mold the democrats like VQ wants to do if you're not criticizing them on issues you disagree with?

This is why I do not understand people like VQ

He claims he wants to mold the D's into a better party yet he calls anyone a republican for speaking out against issues a D happens to be wrong on.

I've said it many times in our arguments. Go ahead and vote for Obama if you want to... but criticize him on issues he's wrong in and try to get him to change his ways. Blind support will get you nowhere.

[-] 2 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

I couldn't agree with you more. I am totally non-partisan, though naturally, since many times Democrats indicate they may be more progressive, they gain my support, but that does not stop me from criticizing, especially when they fail to deliver.

The system will not change one iota, unless we pressure the politicians when our objections and the votes count.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34907) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I agree - but I am trying also not to unduly upset people who might agree if it were not for the republican label. There are good people who consider themselves to be Republicans unfortunately their party is currently being used by the corpoRATions. They need to regain their party just like we all need to regain our government.

Yes - that is where the "majority" of the corpoRATist's in office are "visibly" operating from - from behind the Republican Banner - But if you examine the defenition of Republic it is clear the these corpoRATist's have nothing to do with supporting Republican Ideals. Just like the corpoRATist's hiding behind the Democrat Banner have nothing to do with supporting the ideals of Democracy.

People who may consider themselves to be Republican - please take a moment and consider - what have the republicans in office brought forward to make "your" life better (?) to make society better? Please be honest with yourself look at the issues look at actions in office - can you bring forward anything that has been promoted for the benefit of all of society? No - Trickle Down Economic policy does not count as that helped a very small minority of wealthy individuals and corpoRATions the money never trickled down further than those pockets.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I certainly support educating all people (repubs too) that conservative policies do not improve the life of the middle class. Only benefits the 1% plutocrats. In fact hurts all working class Americans.

It is necessary that repubs come to believe the truth that their interests are not served by the republican party.

They can come to support a new system/3rd party. Thats good.

But I also submit that Dems can be made to serve all the 99%, if our movement grows and pressures all pols to pass progressive solutions to the conservative damage.

My use of republican shill may easily be excessive. There have been at least 2 people I've used it against, Can't say I have a different opinion about them but that is based on their commenst.

I make every effort to avoid cursing, personal attacks, and such. Mostly with success.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34907) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I appreciate your efforts to be fair - I am only trying to say that you don't know who someone is shilling for so you can't make that leap. So in pointing out who is neck deep in manipulating government ( corpoRATions ) this would be a better all purpose designation ( corpoRATist's ) for shills/trolls/quislings/status-quo supporters the attackers of the pro-humanity movements OWS Occupy and all others.

Point out where the majority of these assholes are visibly operating from but also recognize that they are hiding behind a banner that they do not support.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Yes. Good advice as always.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34907) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thank you - for being understanding and open minded. {:-]) and for supporting the movements for Humanity.

Keep-on Keeping-on.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The 1% do not fear the word love, they fear the flesh and blood action that word enables. Love your fellow man by voting for a real person who is capable of taking real action!

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

No. The real person would be made incapable of taking real action.

The flesh and blood action that word enables...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21346) 1 year ago

I think, in the end, most of us are on the same side, we just vary as to how we want to go about things. Some are more practical and want to work within the current system and others are dreamers looking to change everything. Who's to say who is right?

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

I actually believe it's the dreamers that want to work within the current system.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21346) 1 year ago

LOL. I get you.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

A quick litmus test if I may?

Anyone who shows up here defending neo-liberal economic theory is most likely a repelican engaged in furthering the repelican agenda of privatization of every normal function of government to the point that we are all enslaved to the corporate machine.

One of the ways they do this is with positive reinforcement of the idea that is prevalent here that both parties are to blame, and therefore voting for either is a waste of time.

Repelicans cannot win on their own merits - they are a minority and growing smaller I am sure, with each passing day. They depend on people not voting - and that is precisely what you are currently advocating.

Writing in Love on the ballot may be an admirable idea - and as a form of rebellion quite brilliant, but at this juncture not a practical means of changing the system, for it can only result in more repelicans in office, not less.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

You make sense and I understand your argument that repubs cannot win on their own merits. Both parties are hoping segments of the population won't vote because it helps their side. They both rely on negative ads and they both raise large amounts of money for their campaigns. They both hope Americans pay very little attention to their antics. Get past that and your hope that the repubs will disappear. The timing is right!

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

What you are suggesting is more appropriate to a population that has been offered an election where only one outcome is possible, and that outcome will result regardless of the will of the people -

to make such an effort practical requires at least 60% of eligible voters voting, and over 70% casting their ballot as you suggest.

Other factors aside, the demographics aren't there.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

There is only one outcome possible anyway, a corporate candidate will win.

We can send a powerful message.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that is a common misconception, yes.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

What is the common misconception you're refering to?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

take your pick. One of the candidates is not a corporate puppet - and if that is true it then follows the powerful message sent will not be the one intended even if you are successful -

which you won't be unless you count success in some very small numbers.

Don't get me wrong, it is a novel idea - and I may write Love on my ballot - but I will vote for candidates up for election.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

The reason for writing...LOVE... on the ballot is because both candidates, indeed all of Washington, is now dependent on the corporatists machinery. The suits that carry out duties in Washington are not even slowing down.

The word and it's message are fantastic, and the timing is right!


[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I just posted this elsewhere:

No, I do not want indefinite detention. The NDAA bill very neatly tied his hands. As did the screaming when the Obama admin attempted to get a trial going in NYC for some of those indefinitely detained.

I am confident this particular failure does not sit well with the President, he made a promise to close Gitmo, and unlike other promises he has kept, this is one he has not.

I fault Congress for this issue, not the President - and for more on NDAA - see this Forum Post.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

How can you fault congress? Obama is trying to overturn the judge's decision.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I fault Congress for this issue, not the President - and for more on NDAA - see this Forum Post.

We require an attorney to dissect the implications of the lawsuit itself, and its potential impact on public policy given the current state of Congress.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Pure doublespeak. Let me put it bluntly. Obama wants the power of indefinite detention which is as much against basic human rights as you can get. No trial, no accusers, no defense, and no country.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13421) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Obama wants the power of indefinite detention

Really? Have you seen the list of Obama's Promises Kept?

At ten pages long, 20 promises per page, that comes out to just under 200.

To say he wants the power of indefinite detention flies in the face of the facts. One of these facts is that he did make a promise. With a list of promises kept as long as this, it is wildly inaccurate to claim he wants that power now.

Sounds much more like repelican spin designed to change perception rather than examine the issue and determine how best to arrive at a place where Gitmo gets closed.

And you have not accounted for the change in the President's position, or should I say, in this case, his desire for indefinite detention which you assert he now holds.

the fact is the President was attacked in a court of law - and was forced to defend himself in court.

Are you an attorney? Can you say with certainty, and with proof, that the judge's decision in this matter will have no impact on public policy? I don't believe you can. I don't believe you can because I do suspect very strongly that it may.

Do I know that for certainty? No.

I'm not an attorney.

What I do know is that the list of promises he has kept is quite lengthy, and I am certain they are a matter of pride, of accomplishment. That is simply psych 101 - and the failure to close gitmo stands as a failure, one that must chafe the man in light of his successes.

He was stymied on two fronts - with the inability to get trials started in NYC, and with Congress and the NDAA - two years running.

You could argue political theater if you like, but that is to say the President engaged in theater that not only defeated his attempts, it was embarrassing given the hoopla generated over the issue of trials.

It should come as no surprise given the facts that he has conceded on this issue.

And what you should really be asking is:

  • How do we return this issue to the front burner in a way that provides a greater likelihood of success?

Do you ask that?


Instead you use it as a means to smear. Too lazy perhaps?

  • or perhaps you are simply a partisan hack . . . .



[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 1 year ago

The left-right paradigm is a false construct. The more people can see that the better we all will be. The difference between the two parties in the US is so inconsequential, it's a joke.

The conversation should be about freedom, vs totalitarianism - we're heading there now from both parties. Keep your eye on the ball.

"In our age, the idea of intellectual liberty is under attack from two directions. On the one side are its theoretical enemies, the apologists of totalitarianism, and on the other its immediate, practical enemies, monopoly and bureaucracy. Any writer or journalist who wants to retain his integrity finds himself thwarted by the general drift of society rather than by active persecution. The sort of things that are working against him are the concentration of the press in the hands of a few rich men, the grip of monopoly on radio and the films, the unwillingness of the public to spend money on books...

Wherever there is an enforced orthodoxy — or even two orthodoxies, as often happens — good writing stops. This was well illustrated by the Spanish civil war. To many English intellectuals the war was a deeply moving experience, but not an experience about which they could write sincerely. There were only two things that you were allowed to say, and both of them were palpable lies: as a result, the war produced acres of print but almost nothing worth reading...

The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background...

The organized lying practiced by totalitarian states is not, as is sometimes claimed, a temporary expedient of the same nature as military deception. It is something integral to totalitarianism, something that would still continue even if concentration camps and secret police forces had ceased to be necessary...

Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable.

It can never permit either the truthful recording of facts or the emotional sincerity that literary creation demands. But to be corrupted by totalitarianism one does not have to live in a totalitarian country. The mere prevalence of certain ideas can spread a kind of poison that makes one subject after another impossible for literary purposes.

Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. (cf. truthiness - Jesse)

Meanwhile, totalitarianism has not fully triumphed everywhere. Our own society is still, broadly speaking, liberal. To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force. You can say or print almost anything so long as you are willing to do it in a hole-and-corner way.

But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."

George Orwell, The Prevention of Literature, 1946


[-] 1 points by TitusMoans (2451) from Boulder City, NV 1 year ago

The essay rings true, but seems somewhat dated. Perhaps in 1946, the situation in England was considerably different than today, and perhaps England is considerably different than the US even today, but I don't really believe so.

The United States, as the government and ruling class operate today, fits his description of the seventh paragraph quite well. "Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise and age of faith as an age of schizophrenia."

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

just bumping post, no responses?


[-] 0 points by timirninja (263) 1 year ago

your choice is only two color. Dont you think it has two be more than 2 colors represented in congress to picture better freedom of expression? And your neighbor dog can be whatever, and you dont have to worry about his choice

[-] 0 points by shooz (17823) 1 year ago

Here's one of many threads that can help you outline the actual differences.

You could also check threads on global warming.


[-] 0 points by shooz (17823) 1 year ago

Have you posted this at Heritage and CATO yet?

That's where you need to post it.

Will you answer the questions I asked you in the other thread now?

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 1 year ago

Write in...LOVE...on your ballot in November.