Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: You Might Be a Boomer If...

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 24, 2015, 9:24 a.m. EST by turbocharger (1756)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You might be a boomer if you are convinced that it is Republicans or Democrats who are cause of all the problems in the world.

To all of my brainwashed, older friends, I offer this as something to ponder while you are doing your crosswords:

It's pretty simple.

Seems how you are one of the older boomers who really can't grasp how the system works, I will try to explain it to you. Although I think I have before. But I've done a lot of drugs, so maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

When you follow your strategy, it makes turning things around impossible. This is because despite focusing on the "lesser" evil, you are indeed then endorsing something that is more evil than the previous evil.

The scale of corruption can be ever increasing, while still giving you two choices that are not on the same scale.

So while you are attempting to remove something corrupt from office, you are actually endorsing the overall corruption because its a system based on precedents.

You felt that Obama was less corrupt than Romney. You are most likely right. However, but endorsing the less corrupt, you are still lowering the bar on what is acceptable (as proven by "liberals" now voting for war criminals, never ending bombs, torture, wall st bailouts - to me that is most ironic. A group marching and protesting bailouts and then people coming on their websites and telling them to vote for the people who are forcing the bailouts.)

Hope that clarifies how the system works when the people don't participate.

To the small percentage of older women and men who DO understand this, this obviously doesn't apply to you. Rock on my friends, rock on.

Jeremy Griffin

(#3rdPartyUprising)

14 Comments

14 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (22801) 2 years ago

Well said.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

sounds accurate

[-] 2 points by SerfingUSA (451) 2 years ago

Correct Turbo. The Democraps today are as far right as the RepubliCONs 30 years ago. Both parties have shifted way more right. So in essence you are voting RepubliCON by voting DemoCRAP. Obama's actions makes Reagan look like a liberal(*note important distiction: I'm talking about Obama's policy, NOT what he says in his speeches OR what he's "pushing" for when he knows he doesn't have the votes to get it passed)

Both parties keep moving right. If this pro lesser evil strategy continues, when you vote DemoCRAP 30 years from now, you will be voting for a party as far right as the RepubliCONs today.

[-] 2 points by turbocharger (1756) 2 years ago

In some regards though they have each shifted to the left. The Republicans of 30 years ago would have never considered passing Medicare Part D, not in a million years.

But the pharma industry likes their guaranteed customers, so they did. Its socialized medicine, which is certainly not a conservative value.

I don't think we are in some move right situation, instead in some perverse form of both.

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

I don't know if it was worse in the past

a guess our pride may take a hit

IF we did not believe as a species| we are progressing

that yesterday is not the same as today

and tomorrow portents to be open for discovery

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

Both parties have shifted to the right? That's a load of crap with regard to issues like foreign policy, immigration, gay marriage, voter ID and abortion. Here, there are HUGE differences between the major parties.

Now money is a different story entirely. But it's not 'both parties' that have shifted to the right on the issue. Such a statement is horribly misleading and serves no purpose but to severely limit the range of thought. For it's not just 'both parties' that sell out the lower majority. It's virtually every God damn man and woman alive who finds themself in a position of or within reach of extreme personal wealth.

The very concept of it is by far, the most intoxicating and corrupt influence in the history of mankind. PURE EVIL.

http://greedcorruptsall.blogspot.com/

That being said, one party in particular has always been more 'to the right' on the issue of wealth distribution. They are the party more often against aid for the poor. They are the party more often against taxing the rich and their corporate golden geese. They are the party more often against any proposal or policy whatsoever designed to distribute wealth in a more equatable manner.

This remains true in spite of the self-serving hypocrisy of many Democrats. For their hypocrisy is limited more often to a personal stake or that of an affiliate or family member. Because the corrupt act is more often committed in the interest of an individual or affiliate as opposed to the rich in general, less damage is done. Also, logic dictates that a fiscally liberal politician has further to 'shift' in order to reach the conservative position already held by the opposition.

Conservatives on the other hand more often propose, push and enact policies designed to benefit the rich and their corporations not only because of a personal stake or that of an affiliate but also whenever they get a chance do so so regardless. They have always done so considerably more often and they always will. It is their very foundation. They 'shift' even further as we type.

For this reason, we should cast our votes in a manner designed to put the more fiscally liberal candidates in power. To give them a slight majority in Congress and the Presidency. We should cast these votes not only as a gesture but to actually prevent the more fiscally conservative candidates from taking office. If this means voting 'green' or independent, fine. But only if they are polled within striking distance. Otherwise, it's a wasted vote.

They will begin to sell out the moment they find themselves within striking distance. If they are rich or well on their way, then they have already begun their 'shift' to the right. Whatever ideals they once had will be compromised. How much and how quickly depends on the circumstances.

Do your research, watch the polls and vote for the more fiscally liberal candidate most likely to win the election. Do this not in place of protest, pressure and responsible consumer behavior but in addition to.

Visitors, don't let my user rating or my critics divert your attention or limit your range of thought. For OWS isn't what it used to be. It's been sold out by the founders and taken over by fiscal conservatives posing as disgruntled liberals.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/evidence-the-calculated-strategy-of-sold-out-ows-c/

[-] 0 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

Foreign policy. Wow nice try. You need to back that one up seems to me.

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

The following members of Congress voted AGAINST the Iraq war.

UNITED STATES SENATE

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico) Barbara Boxer (D-California) Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island) Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey) Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota) Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) Bob Graham (D-Florida) Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont) Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) Carl Levin (D-Michigan) Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) Patty Murray (D-Washington) Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island) Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland) Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota) Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) Gresham Barrett (R-South Carolina) Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland) Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tennessee) Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)

I know what you're thinking flip. Wrong again. The current operations do not even begin to compare to the size, scale, scope, cost or fundamentally flawed nature of the Iraq war. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Therefore, the point stands.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

the current Iraq war ?

the US should not be killing people and destroying property

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (343) 2 years ago

The list above refers to the invasion and it's horrible management which put us in the very difficult position we're in now. There is no perfect answer but like I said in a previous entry, I lean in your direction here. Just not as far.

War sucks. It's VERY often corrupt and commercialized. However, I do believe that on occasion, military intervention is appropriate. The question is how often and how much?

I'm aware of your position and I respect you for it.

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

ending violence has no vector

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

Well I was thinking of the driver of foreign policy - the white house and state dept. their policy looks like a republican one to me. How about to you?

[-] 2 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 2 years ago

is republican still in the dictionary ?

rome land owners

[-] 1 points by flip (7101) 2 years ago

More of the GOP type but Pax Romana does come to mind. Not sure what they are thinking at the state dept but seems to be a bush Cheney type. No doubt with a smiling face and more articulate spokesman. Not sure if that matters to those on the wrong end of the bombs