Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Ban Political Parties. ALL Political Parties. Crazy? George Washington didn't think so

Posted 5 years ago on Aug. 18, 2014, 11:29 p.m. EST by SerfingUSA (451)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do we need another political party? No ! We need to ban ALL Political Parties. Ban The Democrats. Ban the Republicans. Ban the Tea Party. Ban ALL Parties. Yes, ALL PARTIES !!!

Political Parties only serve to misdirect loyalty away from the citizens and onto the parties. They usurp Citizen Representation.

Excerpt from George Washington's 1796 Farewell Speech as the first American President. He strongly opposed Political Parties. (ALL Political Parties). Warning that political parties have a "Baneful Effect" against a Democratic Republic. Effecting "the ruins of public liberty."

" I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
George Washington. Farewell Address Sep 19, 1796



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

you mentioned machine base cookies also IP address

aswell as flash based cookies

[-] 4 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

yeah... :) .. I remember ... why ? ... looking for update ? ... currently I think a reverse ping system might work best ???

[-] 4 points by elf3 (4149) 5 years ago

Agree...they perform a wrestling match to distract the populous on social issues while they are in lock-step serving and investing in multinational conglomerate corporations. The supreme court is taking bribes as well now. They all have holdings and shares in the corporations which the populous seeks to reign in and for which they make laws on....and it is a total conflict of interest as well as outright bribery to have vested interest s in the entities which seek to control the population...which can even include foreign governments, and the ability to make laws which increase their profits and power at our expense.

[-] 1 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

Clearly Political Parties do huge damage to America by usurping our Democratic Republic process. Too many give greater loyalty to their Political Party than to our Nation. Parties do great harm to our nation, yet they support them! It is easy to tell who are the true patriots, and who are the traitor party loyalists.

[-] 3 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

I can't imagine a more bizzare scenario for a free country, for a democracy, or for voting than "parties".. Literally every stance laid out for you.

And you want to get involved and dont fit their narrative 100% forget about it, not gonna work.

Almost cult-like.

[-] 4 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

A ban on parties in general would be a great first step for anyone wishing to change things from within.

Nice post.

[-] 1 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

Thanks Turbo. But, the Democratic shills on here wouldn't think of banning Political parties. Very revealing.

Don't think that True Occupiers don't appreciate your tireless fight against the paid Democratic shills that infest this forum. It does not go unnoticed.

Any Politician that accepts, is complicit, and participates in our corrupt political system of money pandering is a traitor. When they see money, they turn around, and stick their horny ass up like a cat in heat. These are the puppets pretending to be our "leaders".

If the Republicans are so vile, here is your solution. Support Banning them ! And ALL other parties. Political Parties are usurpers of true representation.

[-] 3 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

If the 99% survive, true history will record our present dystopian two party political duopoly as a machination for the few to control the many. Today's lesser of two evils sham cannot be eliminated soon enough.

Stop relinguishing power to those who whore and pander to wealth and corruption. Let's give power to the people. For a change we can start giving ourselves good and better choices.

[-] 1 points by 1776 (34) from Glen Head, NY 5 years ago

This post makes an excellent point. It would be far more effective to ban political parties completely. We already have two corrupt political establishments. Why add more? Political parties consist of followers. The Ruling Class loves political parties. It is far easier to corrupt a monolithic block of followers than to target each individual. Political parties give us "Paint by numbers" politicians. Their party gives them a cloak of unaccountability.

With so many daunting problems today we do not need corrupt, intractable, monolithic political blocks. We need free thinking individuals who report and are loyal only to their constituents.

[-] 0 points by SerfingUSA (451) 5 years ago

Yes, we must Ban ALL political parties. The mere existence of political parties adulterate our representitive democracy. They misdirect loyalty away from the citizens and divert it into an easily manipulated and corruptible political block.

We need leaders who are great thinkers. Parties create a culture of followers who cannot think for themselves. Party members are useless posers. All they do is follow the scripted party line and speak in talking points.

Ban ALL parties! They are a plague that brings great illness to our society.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

Party, party, party. Or we can put aside the distraction of partisan battles & re double our focus on the ISSUES that affect the 99%.

Your choice

[-] 1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

It is twisted thinking to say the "distraction of partisan battles" is being undertaken by a poster who seems to have contempt for both of the political parties that we have, rather the 'partisanship' is being propagated albeit slyly by someone who has a long reputation on here for advodcating for one party over the other.

A reminder VQ, this is a revoluion in which we do NOT want more of the same. e.g Obama. Of course, "Your choice."

[-] 6 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 5 years ago

partisanship will keep us divided and arguing forever over semantics ... let's talk specifics... https://occupywallst.org/forum/rolling-integrity-an-answer-to-an-occupy-3rd-polit/

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

I support issue debate/action. I reject the distraction of partisan battles.

Join me in that effort.

Solidarity you old viking

[-] 1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

Yes no doubt you and I both have supported candidates who agreed closely with our line of thinking, Tell me ol' man where did it get us? Gee it seems once the bastards get into office, they then answer to their real constituency...$$$$!!!

Both parties stink. It's time to get a little more revolutionary in your thinking and reject party politics altogether. Don't you think?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

Some action on "$$$$" in politics.


Your welcome

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

My focus is on specific issues that affect the 99%. The work between elections is increasingly more important than necessary election efforts.

Money in politics (which you glanced on) is a high priority for me.

As you know besides Occupys efforts on this issue Move to Amend is working hard to grow the movement for progress on that.


In so far as arguing over "parties" (a distraction I avoid) Their are many efforts ongoing that Occupy supports that can improve 3rd party access. Perhaps you can offer some substantive info/action on these issues you've brought up.

But you can debate "parties" & ism's even candidates, & voting with someone who is interested in partaking in the very distraction from substantive action that the oligarchs wish.

I do not prefer telling people how to vote, just wanna offer info and action suggestions.


[-] 1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

That was beautiful VQ. Does this mean that you will not be shilling for the Democrats like you have in the past? OR does it just mean that you have just changed your tactics?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

Between the 2 of us, you're the only one talkin parties.

So the better question is when will you STOP feeding the partisan distractoid machine?

[-] 1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

To accept your line of thinking which infers that several posters on here, including me are partisans because we think both parties stink requires a twisted logic that both you and shooz were masters of. Tell me VQ are you his disciple or his mentor? Will you be leaving again after the elections?

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

Pretty sure I'm talkin about you.

[-] -1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

"Pretty sure I'm talking about you." You can be damn sure I'm talking to you. From what I can deduce from you VQuack is the definition of, "FLAME ON" is - any person who challenges the righteousness of the Democrats or the foolish notion that by voting for them we will have the seachange we so desperately need is 'FLAMING ON.'

Conversely then, anyone who is stupid enough to think that any real change will occur by having more of 'em in office is then super cool

Errr...that sounds like shooz-logic to me....

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

I do not subscribe to your skewed view of my position.

"FLAME ON" refers to your constant engaging in the distraction of meaningless partisan attacks.

I do not tell people how to vote, & do not believe electing more candidates of a particular party will create real change.

I believe the work between elections is more & more important in the fight to eliminate the "you're on your own" mentality.

Can I clear anything else up for you?

On topic: Do you think we should listen to the racist, sexist, founding oligarchs (G. Washington) opinion on ANYTHING?

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

My "line of thinking" infers/specifies, that engaging in the partisan flame wars are a distraction.

My stated purpose is to moderate those partisan flame wars, disseminate important useful info,& encourage activism on the issues that affect the 99%.

The useless "2 parties are the same" fallacy is not a distraction I waste my time with. I will leave that to you & your acolytes.

I'm not involved w/ any posters here, I will not leave after this election. I've never left.

Elections are a pause between the most important work in the street.

Anything else?

[-] 0 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

OK, and "The useless "2 parties are [not[ the same" [on the really important issues] fallacy is not a distraction I [like to] waste my time with." I guess we are both on a higher plane here VQ, at least in our own minds, eh?

You've always received the protection of partisan moderators before you finished your work and left.

I find your new strategy & mantra in trying to turn Occupy into election central amusing & disingenuous. Let's see it's "protest - vote - and protest again", right?

You have always been one of the biggest partisans on here VQ. No, there's nothing else for now.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

I disagree. Issues, info, & activism have always only been MY focus. You have always trailed, harassed, & sought to intimidate me (& others you disagree with) with your useless preoccupation with the partisan flame wars designed to distract from the very issues that must be addressed.

And just to add something topic related.

The founding racist, sexist, oligarch, indeed warned, of partisan threats but did belong to a party & made sure his party continued in power, so why would we listen to him on anything?

[-] 1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

Can I redefine those words and phrases more accurately, "trailed".."harassed & "sought to intimidate"...as to challenging the partisan bullshit you put up here. You're not going to pull out your old victim strategy on me, are you?..lol

If you can't take the heat VQ, get out of the kitchen.

[+] -4 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

What heat?




Who supports Citizen Unites????

Retire 'em!!!!

Put aside your PartisanPolictsPolicing and join the movement to take back our democracy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

[ edit ] touche' ? Really? I don't see it. You put up an op - which apparently would point to a partisanship of yours = at the very least anti Obama.

This has nothing to do with me ( for your figuring to have spanked me ) - as - I know that there is a lot wrong with Obama and some of the policies he has followed.

However - and again - no partisanship involved.

Do You like ALEC? And what ALEC is doing in the USA?

edit -> BTW - you can skip responding to my other comment to you = twenty minutes and no response. And just answer to my current comment = here. Better yet I removed the prior comment so that you would feel no need to respond to it. But please DO respond to the above comment ( here - ya know = on ALEC ).

[-] 4 points by MattHolck0 (3867) 5 years ago

I want the US to stop killing people

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Well - me too - but that just ain't gonna happen with the government that we currently have - and - NO - walking away from government ( as some insist upon ) will not help end war either - it will just give those pushing and prosecuting war a freer hand.

[-] -1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

Replying here. "Pure poison" is also sitting in the White House and in many of the seats in Congress and they have D's after their names.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Being partisan? You did notice that the list of ALEC pure poison membership does include D's - so for you to bring up this fact again - without including the others - well - it does kinda seem that you are being one sided.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

Only D's? Are you blind to the other letters of the alphabet?

Let's retire ALL pols who do not support the progressive agenda!

regardless of the letter after their name.

[-] -1 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

Replying here...gee I didn't know that I was obliged to answer the questions that you pose to me according to your guidelines. Removing all the Democrats from office is a good thing too, don't you reckon 'ol man, especially when you consider that there is a preponderance of evidence that shows both parties are irreparably corrupt?

Didn't all 100 Senators as in D's & R's give their carte blanche support for Israel and the murderous neocon agenda we are both on? Whoops I forgot, you support them also, right?

Will you be shilling for the Dems too. If so, it will be just like old times, eh DK?

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Lame Goatin really lame - I post a list of the membership of ALEC ( a list originally provided to this site by Brad ) - and you call it shilling for the Dems. You are LAME old GOATIN. The list provides a look at pure poison. I would think that you could see past your partisan blinders on this issue. But apparently you are unable.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

So old goat - why don't you provide a list ( non-partisan of course ) of individuals and their actions that you want to see protested ( I say protested as you don't believe in taking direct action against the current powers that be by say oh voting them out of government - right? - you only believe in protesting out in the streets right? ) - you could take like a complete listing of those in office who pushed for rearming Israel ( recent ) as nuttersyahoo and the criminal command of the IDF fired off so much of their USA supplied munitions in their criminal attacks on the population of Gaza.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago


[-] 0 points by turbocharger (1756) 5 years ago

Here's Obombers speech to AIPAC right after he took the Dem nomination.

Carlin: Its a big club, and you aint in it!


[-] -2 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

Replying here. I put up an op? Tell me which one of the 20 things Obama and the Dems betrayed us on was 'opinion.' If you believe that that Occupy should turn into election central which seems to clearly be the case, you are nuts. You should think about going somewhere where you fit in and where you do not need big cajonnes

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (2697) 5 years ago

You're the only one talkin about 'election central'.

You must create false (strawman?) arguments because you are unable to honestly argue the actual position espoused?

transparent, & pathetic.

[-] -2 points by eklutna (101) 5 years ago

We can agree that ALEC sucks and "there is a lot wrong with Obama and some of the policies that he has followed." I would rather say that him and his fellow liberals have betrayed us tho.... 'cause it is less euphemistic sounding. Can we also agree that both parties stink because both answer to corporate and banking iinterests?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

1st look at the membership of ALEC. On The Board of directors there are 3 Dems and like 26 Reps. I haven't counted the numbers of each of the regular members of the 50 states but I did scroll through ( I can count em if you wish ) - and scrolling through I saw the rare Dem member listed and scads of Rep members listed.

Can we agree that this shows a startling dissimilarity between members of parties currently in office?

Looking at the Actions of ALEC - wouldn't you say that that is representative of it's Board and Members wishes? And representative of both parties actions in office?

If so - I do not see how you can equivocate the one as being at all like the other.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

I guess you declined to say that the ALEC membership listing was a good list to start on for people to remove from office or prevent from getting office - because???????

Of the Legislative members of ALEC

18 are listed as being Dems


601 are listed as being Reps

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Now try to tell me that those Members of ALEC are not prime targets for removal from office and prime targets to be kept away from seeking office or seeking any kind of contact with government.

Nothing? No reply? This is non-partisan. This is just pointing out facts of action and membership and does include Dems as well as Reps.

You do not feel that this very obvious membership in a very obvious group = ALEC - warrants very obvious removal from office?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

euphemistic - substituting a mild term for a harsher or distasteful one; "`peepee' is a common euphemistic term"

Less euphemistic that is what you are going for? And only as regards the Dems?

Well I appreciate you not trying to be euphemistic or Less euphemistic about the Reps in office. ( i think )

Fact of the matter - IS - look at what ALEC has done - then look at who is the overwhelming majoity of ALEC membership - IN OFFICE.

Now try to tell me that those Members of ALEC are not prime targets for removal from office and prime targets to be kept away from seeking office or seeking any kind of contact with government.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Is it really that difficult of a question? = Do You like ALEC? And what ALEC is doing in the USA?