Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Reopening a Critically Important Debate: Are Dems & Cons Exactly the Same?

Posted 8 years ago on July 27, 2012, 1:49 a.m. EST by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Reopening a Critically Important Debate: Are Democrats and RepubliCons Exactly (Any Where Near) the Same?

By michael payne

opednews.com | Debate by intelligentspeculator.net

We are rapidly approaching what may well prove to be the most important election in this nation's history, one that will have a monumental impact on its future direction. As millions of Americans struggle with the decision on how to cast their votes they become more and more confused as they hear many of their fellow citizens proclaiming that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans; that they are exactly the same.

It's time that this misrepresentation of the facts is strongly challenged. It's one thing to simply make a statement that's based on one's emotions or generalizations but it's an entirely different matter when such statements have to be supported by concrete facts and evidence. To say that these two parties are exactly alike is to say that their platforms, their legislative agendas, political tactics, and the addressing of peoples' needs and concerns are identical. To advance that unsupported belief is doing a great disservice to the American people who need to be guided in their decisions by facts, not by supposition or conjecture.

To say that the parties are exactly the same is like saying that all corporations exactly the same, that they all are card carrying members of the profit-crazed entity called Corporate America? That's simply not true. Those who are causing great damage to America are mostly the giant transnational corporations who have outsourced millions of jobs, closed many thousands of plants and use every tactic at their disposal to pay little or no taxes. But there are thousands of corporations in the U.S. who still employ American workers, pay them decent wages and benefits, and pay their share of taxes.

Here's yet another example of why we can't just make such blanket judgments. In this national media should we consider Fox News and MSNBC as being exactly the same when the former strongly supports the GOP and its demented agenda and the latter champions the Democratic Party? Would you say that MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell are exactly the same as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly? Both news organizations clearly support the political ideologies of their own parties and continually show their disdain and revulsion for the other. While MSNBC fails to offer appropriate criticisms of Mr. Obama and the Democrats as they should, those at Fox News march in lockstep with the GOP.

Since I believe that the upcoming elections of 2012 are critically important to this nation's future and that it is absolutely essential that Americans are informed and educated about the issues and the clear differences between the two parties, I will ask once again, as I have in the past: in the following list, which of these issues involving very important government programs or legislation are the Democrats and Republicans even remotely close to having the same positions? I would like everyone who believes that Democrats and Republicans have the exact same positions on dealing with these critical issues to support their contention with very clear facts and concrete evidence that proves their case.

*Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid; please give specific details on why you may think that each party's position is exactly the same.

*Food stamps, student loans, unemployment benefits; show how there is no difference between the two parties.

*Filibusters, blocking all legislation on jobs, blocking judicial appointments; show evidence on how each party is filibustering and blocking important legislation. Just last week the Republicans filibustered the Bring Jobs Home Act that Democrats proposed to bring back jobs to America. Then the Republicans did the same on the DISCLOSE Act that would identify those who are corrupting our political process with hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign contributions.

*Destroying unions and union rights; laying off teachers, police and firefighters ; which party is still trying to support these entities and which one is trying to tear them down?

*Support of the 1%, escalating the disparity of income, wealth in America; which party totally sides with the 1% and which one is supportive of the 99%?

*Enacting laws to reverse outsourcing by using tax incentives and penalties; which party recently tried to pass legislation to do this and which party killed the effort?

*Working to eliminate important regulations on air, water, drilling and mining standards; which party represents the interests of the corporations who are trying to destroy any and all regulations and doing away with the EPA?

*Voter suppression laws; is it Republican governors and their legislatures in several states that have enacted these anti-democratic laws or do you, somehow, believe that the Democrats did it?

Let's stop referring to this situation as being the lesser of two evils; let's say that in these upcoming elections we will need to make a choice and vote for that presidential candidate and that political party which gives America its best hope for the future; which one has the greater potential for finally listening to the peoples' needs and concerns and can, somehow, find the ways to stabilize this nation by addressing and solving its most critical problems.

Let's be clear on one important point. Democrats in Congress are far from perfect; they are, in fact, often weak and indecisive; they could use a series of powerful injections to give them more courage, conviction and strength. In contrast we might say that Republicans already have great strength, courage and conviction -- the only problem is that it supports a twisted ideology that, if allowed to spread through this nation, will destroy our democracy. So, what Republicans need is a series of injections of ethics, integrity and morality.

This country stands at a critical crossroads and it must choose one road or another; sure we can show our disgust by refusing to vote or we can cast a vote for a third party candidate who has no hope of winning. But if we make the wrong choice and take the wrong road, this country is going to go down for the count. If anyone thinks that this president and this Democratic Party have failed to live up to the full expectations of the American people they are entirely correct. But if these same people are willing to let Mitt Romney and the demented Republican Party take full control of this country, then they just might be going from the frying pan into a boiling cauldron for this is a political party that no longer represents the American people and has sold its soul to the money, power and influence of Corporate America.

There is one person in the U.S. Congress that I trust above all others, one that I believe is trying hard to do what is best for America and its people. That person is Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator from Vermont. He doesn't hold back his criticisms of the president and the Democratic Party but one thing that has become very clear; his positions on numerous issues are far more in line with the Democrats than they are with the Republicans. Is there anyone who would dare to include him in the blanket statement that he and the Democrats and the Republicans are all exactly the same?

Sometime in the not too distant future we are going to have to see the emergence of a new breed of patriotic Americans who have the courage and conviction to enter this political process and represent the American people in a competent, ethical, and moral way; that might happen with the emergence of a strong third party or, perhaps, with the progressive movement taking over control of the Democratic Party. But that time is not now. America has its back against the wall and is in great danger. There is very little time left before these elections and we all better think long and very deeply about what we are going to do when that time comes.

So, in closing, I suggest that every person who reads this article and then still feels that, on the specific issues listed above, that the two parties are exactly the same, or are even remotely close in their respective positions, to back up their contention with clear, indisputable facts and evidence. And let the debate begin.

Michael Payne is an independent progressive activist. His articles concentrate on social, economic and political matters as well as American foreign policy. He is a U.S. Army veteran and a graduate of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. His (more...)

175 Comments

175 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

25 years and the ivy league still

Owns presidency on capitol hill

Harvard men

Destine for Election

.

I realize now that we don't have a choice

gotta elect a fraternity voice

that is part of aristocracy

.

and they make there contacts in the college years

with the rich families and financiers

and I start to suspect

a little collusion

.

and they sift selection in the primaries

allow only choices from the ivy league

and I see at the top of the list

"What's Going ON!"

.

O ba ma's from Harvard

Romney's from Harvard

so is Gore

and Bush aswell

.

O ba ma's from Harvard

Romney's from Harvard

so is Gore

Clinton's from Yale

.

and I try,

oh my god how I try

I try everyday in this institution

and I see

oh it obvious to me

that choice is an illusion

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Obama v. Romney: Two Radically Different Visions Of America's Future

We've got a stark choice: do we improve the systems that have made us rich and powerful in the past? Or do we tear them down in the name of "freedom," and hope for the best?

August 1, 2012 |

America is divided about its future. Should it keep and expand the system that brought past opportunity, prosperity and freedom? Or should it dismantle that system?

President Obama recently reminded us that private life, private enterprise and personal freedom depend on what the public provides.

"The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.... when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.... So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country ... there are some things we do better together. That's how we funded the GI Bill. That's how we created the middle class. That's how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That's how we invented the Internet. That's how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people ... I still believe in that idea. You're not on your own, we're in this together.... If you were successful, ... somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive."

http://www.alternet.org/visions/obama-v-romney-two-radically-different-visions-americas-future

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

what's the GI bill?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

It is how My Mom and Dad bought our house. For my Dads service in WWII. Search it.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Post WW2 bill that gave opportunities to Vets and seeded the growth of our once great Middle Class, revisited by Dems after 2006 but fought tooth and nail by despicably Big $ Cons.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Outrage with Chick Fil A BIGOTRY!

Yesterday was Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay Day! Sorry if you missed it. You’ll just have to spend today being intolerant on your own. Technically, it was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, but what the people who showed up really appreciated was just how intolerant Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy is of gay people. I don’t know if a boycott of Chick-fil-A would work. Have you ever noticed how many Tea Party types are morbidly obese? I think Chick-fil-A could thrive on their business alone. For every 10 people who refuse to eat at Chick-fil-A, they can just have one Tea Party person eat 10 times as much from Chick-fil-A. I’m sure there will be plenty of willing volunteers.

Despite yesterday’s show of support from homophobic cholesterol addicts, the Chick-fil-A brand has been damaged... not as much as their customers’ arteries, but still pretty bad. Pretty soon, Chick-fil-A will be totally dependent on a very small but fanatically devoted following—exactly like the Republican Party is. Heck, they’re exactly the same followers! Most Chick-fil-A franchises are in the South. That’s good for them. If you’re depending on having a customer base that’s motivated by intolerance, you’re a lot better off in states where Newt Gingrich did well in the primary.

Yesterday a whole range of Affordable Care Act healthcare provisions for women started to kick in. To Republicans... that’s a day that will live in infamy. GOP Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) compared the new women’s healthcare provisions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Kelly listed off Pearl Harbor Day and 9/11 and said “remember August 1, 2012 — the attack on our religious freedom. That is a date that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.” Sorry Mike, but I don’t think the History Channel will be putting together a retrospective for this one.

Loony GOP Rep. Steven King (R-IA) is making birther statements about Obama being born in Kenya. The shocking thing is that this is the least crazy thing Steven King has said in recent days. Steve has been praising dog fighting and babbling about how it’s legal to impregnate 13-year olds in this country. Having him babble about the President being from Kenya is actually a step forward.

Randi Rhodes Daily News | http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html

Aug 2, 2012

[-] -1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

The religion shit bugs me!!

We have a Constitutional separation of church and state, but if a candidate didn't have religion, no matter what school, no matter what Big $, no matter what party, no matter fucking what!!! Without religion (CHRISTIANITY) a candidate COULD NEVER BE ELECTED!!!

End the tacit and insidious religion in our government NOW!!!

[-] -2 points by throaway (57) 8 years ago

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, she doesn't eat meat. If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned or regulated for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he leads his life. If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. If a Democrat is down and out, she wonders who is going to take care of her.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. if a Democrat doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that he/she be taken off the air.

If a Republican has no religious belief, he doesn't go to church. If a Democrat has no religious belief, he wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican needs health care, he shops for it, or finds a job that provides it. If a Democrat needs health care, she demands that the rest of us provide it.

If a Republican reads this, she'll forward it so her friends can reflect on it. If a Democrat receives this, he will delete it because he's "offended".

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/the_differences_between_republicans_and_democrats.html#ixzz22SqCHulP

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

If a (R)epelican't is a libe(R)tarian, they make things up about Democrats, and everybody else.

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 8 years ago

Oh, did you think something above untrue?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You mean other than all of it?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-great-libertarian-con/

It's you who's been taken for a ride.........:)

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You know you are being dishonest.

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 8 years ago

I do?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

it's cute. but hardly truthful or factual.

Elect progressives! Vote out anti Buffet rule, pro Norquist republicans.

It's the only way to be sure!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

lol

oh list poetry

this is true a brilliant debate format

and lord knows these parties want to shown as different

If a big business doesn't like you. There is no redress. They have the power and the money.

If the government doesn't like you, their is room for free speech to redress that.

oh this is fun

right, very little differences between the parties

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Elect progressives, vote out anti medicare republicans

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Sounds like a nursary rhyme. We should approach the issue as adults

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Repelicans hate LGBT Americans, Immigrants, Minorities, womens rights, elderly, And Dems embrace all Americans. Thats the difference in a nut shell.

[-] -3 points by Odin (583) 8 years ago

The Bushes went to Yale.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

also?

Beginning in the fall of 1973, Bush attended the Harvard Business School, where he earned a Master of Business Administration. He is the only U.S. President to ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

[-] -3 points by Odin (583) 8 years ago

OK, thanks.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Bush was apart of that whole Yale thing.

"Yale thing?" You ask? I think for one that he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NyzQwwO4Os

LOL funny scene from American Psycho

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

That was a crazy movie. Just saw it a couple weeks ago.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

always a classic! Sociopaths on Wall Street.

Mergers and acquisitions

[-] -2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

It made me want to read the book. Usually if a movie is good, the book kicks-ass. Time constraints and all.

[-] -3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

the book is too intense for my tastes. It's insanely graphic. I loved the movie the though. The movie is a toned down version of the book.

[-] -1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

As they usually are. Hell, I thought the movie was intense. One of the most intense I've seen in a long time.

[-] -2 points by Odin (583) 8 years ago

lol Thanks, I needed that.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by imagine40 (383) 8 years ago

traitorous republican shills advocate for the 1% who exploit their own families

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Masochistic Zombies!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Any right wing wacko religious fundamentalcase trolls wanna spew?

Great Post RP. Thought I'd bump it up to the top again.

Solidarity

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Keep getting out the Vote!

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

And check out the Democratic Party Platform for 2012:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/5580817?access_key=key-1zf4u6u715vizx9tyg92

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Randi Rhodes Daily News | http://www.randirhodes.com/main.html

Aug 2, 2012

Yesterday was Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay Day! Sorry if you missed it. You’ll just have to spend today being intolerant on your own. Technically, it was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, but what the people who showed up really appreciated was just how intolerant Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy is of gay people. I don’t know if a boycott of Chick-fil-A would work. Have you ever noticed how many Tea Party types are morbidly obese? I think Chick-fil-A could thrive on their business alone. For every 10 people who refuse to eat at Chick-fil-A, they can just have one Tea Party person eat 10 times as much from Chick-fil-A. I’m sure there will be plenty of willing volunteers.

Despite yesterday’s show of support from homophobic cholesterol addicts, the Chick-fil-A brand has been damaged... not as much as their customers’ arteries, but still pretty bad. Pretty soon, Chick-fil-A will be totally dependent on a very small but fanatically devoted following—exactly like the Republican Party is. Heck, they’re exactly the same followers! Most Chick-fil-A franchises are in the South. That’s good for them. If you’re depending on having a customer base that’s motivated by intolerance, you’re a lot better off in states where Newt Gingrich did well in the primary.

Yesterday a whole range of Affordable Care Act healthcare provisions for women started to kick in. To Republicans... that’s a day that will live in infamy. GOP Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA) compared the new women’s healthcare provisions to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Kelly listed off Pearl Harbor Day and 9/11 and said “remember August 1, 2012 — the attack on our religious freedom. That is a date that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.” Sorry Mike, but I don’t think the History Channel will be putting together a retrospective for this one.

Loony GOP Rep. Steven King (R-IA) is making birther statements about Obama being born in Kenya. The shocking thing is that this is the least crazy thing Steven King has said in recent days. Steve has been praising dog fighting and babbling about how it’s legal to impregnate 13-year olds in this country. Having him babble about the President being from Kenya is actually a step forward.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

The Science of Fox News: Why Its Viewers are the Most Misinformed

Authoritarian people [RepubliCons] have a stronger emotional need for an outlet like Fox, where they can find affirmation and escape factual challenges to their "beliefs."

April 8, 2012 |

Editor's note: This is an excerpt from Chris Mooney’s new book The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science and Reality.

In June of last year, Jon Stewart went on air with Fox News’ Chris Wallace and started a major media controversy over the channel’s misinforming of its viewers. “Who are the most consistently misinformed media viewers?” Stewart asked Wallace. “The most consistently misinformed? Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll.”

Stewart’s statement was factually accurate, as we’ll see. The next day, however, the fact-checking site PolitiFact weighed in and rated it “false.”In claiming to check Stewart’s “facts,” PolitiFact ironically committed a serious error—and later, doubly ironically, failed to correct it. How’s that for the power of fact checking?

There probably is a small group of media consumers out there somewhere in the world who are more misinformed, overall, than Fox News viewers. But if you only consider mainstream U.S. television news outlets with major audiences (e.g., numbering in the millions), it really is true that Fox viewers are the most misled based on all the available evidence—especially in areas of political controversy. This will come as little surprise to liberals, perhaps, but the evidence for it—evidence in Stewart’s favor—is pretty overwhelming.

My goal here is to explore the underlying causes for this “Fox News effect”—explaining how this station has brought about a hurricane-like intensification of factual error, misinformation and unsupportable but ideologically charged beliefs on the conservative side of the aisle. First, though, let’s begin by surveying the evidence about how misinformed Fox viewers actually are.

Based upon my research, I have located seven separate studies that support Stewart’s claim about Fox, and none that undermine it. Six of these studies were available at the time that PolitFact took on Stewart; one of them is newer.

The studies all take a similar form: These are public opinion surveys that ask citizens about their beliefs on factual but contested issues, and also about their media habits. Inevitably, some significant percentage of citizens are found to be misinformed about the facts, and in a politicized way—but not only that. The surveys also find that those who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.

So with that, here are the studies.

Iraq War

In 2003, a surveyby the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland found widespread public misperceptions about the Iraq war. For instance, many Americans believed the U.S. had evidence that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had been collaborating in some way with Al Qaeda, or was involved in the 9-11 attacks; many also believed that the much touted “weapons of mass destruction” had been found in the country after the U.S. invasion, when they hadn’t. But not everyone was equally misinformed: “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news,” PIPA reported. “Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” For instance, 80 percent of Fox viewers held at least one of three Iraq-related misperceptions, more than a variety of other types of news consumers, and especially NPR and PBS users. Most strikingly, Fox watchers who paid more attention to the channel were more likely to be misled.

Global Warming

At least two studies have documented that Fox News viewers are more misinformed about this subject.

In a late 2010 survey, Stanford University political scientist Jon Krosnick and visiting scholar Bo MacInnis found that “more exposure to Fox News was associated with more rejection of many mainstream scientists’ claims about global warming, with less trust in scientists, and with more belief that ameliorating global warming would hurt the U.S. economy.” Frequent Fox viewers were less likely to say the Earth’s temperature has been rising and less likely to attribute this temperature increase to human activities. In fact, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the most frequent Fox News watchers (60%) and those who watch no Fox News (85%) in whether they think global warming is “caused mostly by things people do or about equally by things people do and natural causes.”

In a much more comprehensive study released in late 2011 (too late for Stewart or for PolitiFact), American University communications scholar Lauren Feldman and her colleagues reported on their analysis of a 2008 national survey, which found that “Fox News viewing manifests a significant, negative association with global warming acceptance.” Viewers of the station were less likely to agree that “most scientists think global warming is happening” and less likely to think global warming is mostly caused by human activities, among other measures.

Health Care

In 2009, an NBC survey found “rampant misinformation” about the healthcare reform bill before Congress — derided on the right as “Obamacare.” It also found that Fox News viewers were much more likely to believe this misinformation than average members of the general public. “72% of self-identified Fox News viewers believe the healthcare plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly,” the survey found.

By contrast, among CNN and MSNBC viewers, only 41 percent believed the illegal immigrant falsehood, 39 percent believed in the threat of a “government takeover” of healthcare (40 percentage points less), 40 percent believed the falsehood about abortion, and 30 percent believed the falsehood about “death panels” (a 45 percent difference!).

In early 2011, the Kaiser Family Foundation released another survey on public misperceptions about healthcare reform. The poll asked 10 questions about the newly passed healthcare law and compared the “high scorers”—those that answered 7 or more correct—based on their media habits. The result was that “higher shares of those who report CNN (35 percent) or MSNBC (39 percent) as their primary news source [got] 7 or more right, compared to those that report mainly watching Fox News (25 percent).”

"Ground Zero Mosque”

In late 2010, two scholars at the Ohio State University studied public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque”—and in particular, the prevalence of a series of rumors depicting those seeking to build this Islamic community center and mosque as terrorist sympathizers, anti-American, and so on. All of these rumors had, of course, been dutifully debunked by fact-checking organizations. The result? “People who use Fox News believe more of the rumors we asked about and they believe them more strongly than those who do not.”

The 2010 Election

In late 2010, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) once again singled out Fox in a survey about misinformation during the 2010 election. Out of 11 false claims studied in the survey, PIPA found that “almost daily” Fox News viewers were “significantly more likely than those who never watched it” to believe 9 of them, including the misperceptions that “most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring” (they do), that “it is not clear that President Obama was born in the United States” (he was), that “most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses” (it either saved or created several million), that “most economists have estimated the healthcare law will worsen the deficit” (they have not), and so on.

It is important to note that in this study—by far the most critiqued of the bunch—the examples of misinformation studied were all closely related to prominent issues in the 2010 midterm election, and indeed, were selected precisely because they involved issues that voters said were of greatest importance to them, like healthcare and the economy. That was the main criterion for inclusion, explains PIPA senior research scholar Clay Ramsay. “People said, here’s how I would rank that as an influence on my vote,” says Ramsay, “so everything tested is at least a 5 on a zero-to-10 scale.”

(CONTINUED:) http://www.alternet.org/story/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed?paging=off

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Chick fil A are RepubliCons!!

August 01, 2012 | Dan Rafter

Category: Call It Out, Marriage, Workplace, Blog, Call It Out, Chickfila, Do Not Display, Marriage & Relationships Chick-fil-A Anti-Gay: Bad for Business

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-bad-for-business/

Since Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy made his anti-LGBT remarks two weeks ago, the fast food chain’s image with consumers has plummeted. According to YouGov’s BrandIndex, Chick-fil-A’s perception with consumers dropped from a 65 prior to Cathy’s remarks – nearly 20 points above the national average for other fast food chains – to a 39.

Chick-fil-A’s brand suffered particularly in the South, where the chain’s rating with consumers has dropped from an 80 to a 44 since Cathy’s anti-LGBT remarks. Chick-fil-A has a strong foothold throughout the South, particularly Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina – but the sheer number of stores couldn’t protect it from the consumer backlash.

The fast food chain also is seeing its image plummet in the Northeast, where its rating has dropped from a 76 to a 35.

BrandIndex conducts regular surveys with consumers and measures a company’s public image based on quality, satisfaction, reputation, value, general impression, and willingness to recommend.

There also is solid data indicating that being anti-LGBT is simply bad for business. Several profile high-profile examples from this year illustrate that embracing equality benefits a company’s public image: When Nabisco’s Oreo brand released a famous image of a rainbow cookie to commemorate LGBT Pride in June, positive perception of the company among 18-34 year olds skyrocketed, increasing 15 percentage points. Moms with kids stepped up their support for J.C. Penney’s on two occasions, when the anti-LGBT group One Million Moms criticized the clothing store first for naming Ellen DeGeneres as their spokeswoman, and later when they included a picture of two lesbian moms in their Mother’s Day catalogue. In both instances, support among moms with kids jumped as One Million Moms launched anti-equality attacks on the company.

Source: YouGov’s BrandIndex

It’s not hard to see why Chick-fil-A’s brand is suffering as they proudly embrace their anti-LGBT practices. They are outliers in a landscape where the majority of businesses have made historic strides in embracing equality:

86 percent of Fortune 500 companies protect employees on the basis of sexual orientation.

50 percent of Fortune 500 companies protect employees on the basis of gender identity.

Since 2002, the number of Fortune 500 companies offering domestic partner benefits climbed 76 percent.

Perhaps most noteworthy is that the LGBT community wields a buying power of nearly $800 billion.

During a decade of remarkable progress in the business community, Chick-fil-A has remained firmly planted in the past. As a result, there are now tangible declines in Chick-fil-A’s public perception that will likely impact the company’s bottom line. Learn more about Chick-fil-A’s anti-LGBT donations and view HRC's pledge.

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-bad-for-business/

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Can Towns Bar Chick-fil-A From Opening New Stores for Its Explicit Anti-Gay Stance? The owner's anti-gay crusade is funded in large part straight from Chick-fil-A corporate coffers. July 31, 2012 |

Photo Credit: Scuddr via Flickr -nc v2.0

Like this article? Join our email list: Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.

The dust-up between Chick-fil-A and the mayors of Boston and Chicago finally got interesting on Monday when it turned into a debate over corporate personhood.

I had a chance to weigh in on the topic on The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann last Friday when I was asked if I had a problem with what the mayors did. I gave a simple response: “No.”

But then I elaborated, pointing out that the mayors were well within their right to threaten Chick-fil-A, however, if Boston or Chicago took the next step and actually denied licenses to the fast-food giant, then there could be a problem with discrimination and government overreach. I now know I was wrong.

On Monday, Lee Fang, investigative reporter at the Nation, exposed the mistake many progressives, myself included, had made on this issue. First, as Fang pointed out, the Chick-fil-A controversy has nothing to do with the views of CEO Dan Cathy and his family’s hefty contributions to anti-gay hate groups like the Family Research Council. The Cathy family has every right to spend millions discriminating against gays and lesbians, just like consumers have every right to choose not to eat at Chick-fil-A knowing the restaurant’s religious agenda goes beyond just closing on Sundays.

The problem, however, is that it’s not just the Cathy family that’s donating to hate groups; the Chick-fil-A corporation is as well. As Fang reveals, the Cathy family’s anti-gay crusade is funded in large part straight from Chick-fil-A corporate coffers. In fact, Chick-fil-A and its corporate affiliates donated more than $19.5 million in 2010 to the Cathy family’s charity, which acts as a vehicle to funnel money into anti-gay hate groups.

So Fang asks:

If a corporation uses its general treasury funds to finance political advocacy, does that mean any politician that takes action against that corporation in response to that advocacy is violating the First Amendment? It’s a question that comes down to whether you believe corporations have rights akin to human beings.

While Fang largely leaves the question open-handed, I’ll close it. I don’t believe corporations are people, nor do a growing number of progressives, libertarians, Democrats, and even Republicans who’ve all recently joined movements like Move to Amend to overturn the doctrine of corporate personhood. As many as 280 cities and six states have passed resolutions to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and many have gone a step further to overturn corporate personhood altogether.

I don’t believe corporations have a right to free speech, nor are they protected from discrimination like actual people (except for gays and lesbians, who can still legally be discriminated against).

On that premise, I believe a corporation like Chick-fil-A can legally be barred from opening up shop in a city where citizens have come together, elected a government, and passed laws keeping specific corporations out of the city limits.

Now enter Salon columnist Glenn Greenwald. Within two hours of Fang posting his column questioning the personhood of Chick-fil-A, Greenwald posted his own column slashing Fang and saying, “I have a question for him and those who think like him.”

That means a question for me.

Greenwald begins first by arguing all nine justices on the Supreme Court have affirmed corporate personhood and agree that corporate speech is protected under the First Amendment.

He’s right, but it’s not saying much. On one of the few issues that Rand Paul and I agree on, I don’t consider the Supreme Court the final arbiter of what’s right and wrong. While SCOTUS has ruled that corporations are people, it has also ruled that people are property – think Dred Scott. And of course, anyone saying, “Well, the Supreme Court has spoken, let’s live with it,” one day after the Dred Scott decision would clearly have been on the wrong side of history.

Plus, never mind the fact that the very first Supreme Court case to enshrine corporate personhood into law was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in1886. In that case, not a single judge ruled in favor of corporate personhood, yet a court reporter with ties to the railroad barons slipped the doctrine into the headnotes of the case. Though headnotes having no official legal standing, this particular headnote has been the basis of corporate personhood precedent ever since.

But Greenwald knew affirming corporate personhood just because SCOTUS says so wasn’t the strongest argument. He asks to “leave aside” that fact and instead jots down a few hypotheticals, examples of the dystopic future our nation is headed toward if corporations weren’t given personhood rights. As Greenwald argues:

I’d like everyone to suppose that the following actions are taken by the state, and then for each, tell me whether you believe it would or would not be constitutional:

Congress enacts a law that states: No business incorporated in America, whether for-profit or non-profit, shall be permitted to donate any of its money to groups espousing liberal ideas. Any business found to be in violation of this prohibition shall be guilty of a Class A felony. Corporate donations to groups espousing conservative causes shall still be permissible and legal.

Greenwald rattles off a few more similar hypotheticals, basically arguing that if corporations didn’t have First Amendment rights like people, then governments would be allowed to discriminate against certain corporations – even going as far to conduct audits, searches and seizures on corporations that held different politics than whichever party was in control.

Now, I’m a big fan of Glenn Greenwald and agree with him on most issues. But on corporate personhood, he’s dead wrong.

First, in regard to his hypotheticals: Yes, I believe those hypotheticals are indeed constitutional. In saying as much I’ve been accused of being both a “repulsive authoritarian” and an “anarchist.” Greenwald even called me a “Bush follower.”

But take the hypothetical cited above, it sounds remarkably similar to this law, which is still on the books (but not enforced):

(CONTINUED:) http://www.alternet.org/can-towns-bar-chick-fil-opening-new-stores-its-explicit-anti-gay-stance?paging=off

I would assume that Greenwald knows the true story of the Boston Tea Party and the fact that our nation revolted as much against corporate power as it did an absolute monarch. Yet, Greenwald outrageously mischaracterizes the view of some of our most influential Founding Fathers like Jefferson, Madison and Paine who early in the days of the new republic wrote exhaustively on protecting the people from aggregated wealth in the form of aristocracy or corporations. Heck, every single one of the 13 colonies was originally founded as a corporation – hence, the vigilance against too much corporate power.

Our nation has a long history of restraining corporations, from denying them free speech to revoking their charters if they operate against the public good, to forcing them to recognize organized people in the form of labor unions. One could even argue that American history has been a two-century-long struggle between organized people (democracy) and organized money (corporations), with liberal institutions protecting the former and market forces consolidating the power of the latter.

To give organized money the same rights as people, as Greenwald argues for, is to enable them to speak louder in our democracy, have more leverage in our economy, and erode our national sovereignty. All things I would assume Glenn Greenwald would be adamantly against.

As a freedom fighter, let’s hope he reconsiders his stance.

Sam Sacks is a former Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill. He's now the senior producer on The Big Picture with Thom Hartmann airing weeknights at 7pm EST on Free Speech TV and RT America.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Chick-fil-A Thrust Back Into Spotlight on Gay Rights By KIM SEVERSON Published: July 25, 2012

ATLANTA — A Southern-fried chicken sandwich on a soft white bun with a couple of pickle slices is fast becoming the culinary symbol of one of the country’s major social issues.

The Baptist family that owns Chick-fil-A, a fast-food chain based in Atlanta, has for years given millions of dollars to organizations fighting same-sex marriage and supporting heterosexual ones.

Small protests against its position have swelled and receded over the past couple of years, but recently the battle has spilled into the halls of city governments and the presidential campaign. Even the Muppets are involved.

The latest uproar began this month when Dan T. Cathy, whose deeply religious father, S. Truett Cathy, started the company in 1967, told a Christian news organization that Chick-fil-A supported “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

Mr. Cathy, the company’s president and chief operating officer, said later in a radio interview, “As it relates to society in general, I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ “

The statements, which prompted groups like the National Organization for Marriage to call Mr. Cathy a corporate hero, echo an ethos the company has never hidden.

In early 2011, a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Pennsylvania donated food to a marriage seminar conducted by one of that state’s most outspoken groups against homosexuality. Advocates on both sides weighed in, and students at some universities began trying to get the chain removed from campuses.

Equality Matters, an online investigative organization dedicated to gay and lesbian issues, last year obtained tax records that showed that the company’s operators, its WinShape Foundation and the Cathy family had given millions of dollars to groups whose work includes defeating same-sex marriage initiatives and providing therapy intended to change people’s sexual orientation.

So Mr. Cathy’s statements might have passed without much notice except that Carly McGehee, a New Yorker, decided to stage a same-sex kiss-in on Aug. 3, urging gays and lesbians to show up at the company’s 1,600 restaurants around the country in protest.

That moved Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, to declare Aug. 1 as Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. His call to action, which he posted on Facebook last week, garnered such a response that it tripped the site’s spam filters, and the page was taken down briefly on Tuesday.

Rick Santorum, the former Republican presidential candidate, has now jumped in. On Wednesday, he rallied his 200,000 Twitter followers: “With two of my boys, Enjoying chick-in-strips and an awesome peach shake at Chick-fil-A. See you here next Wednesday!”

This week, Alderman Proco Moreno of Chicago said he would not move forward on land-use legislation that the company needs to open a second restaurant in that city, and on Friday, Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston sent a letter telling Mr. Cathy that his company was not welcome there.

The Jim Henson Company, which created toys for the chain, will not offer any more Muppets. On Friday, it said Lisa Henson, the chief executive officer, supported same-sex marriage and would donate money that the company had received from Chick-fil-A to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.

About the same time, Chick-fil-A posted signs announcing a “voluntary recall” of all Jim Henson’s Creature Shop Puppet Kids Meal toys, citing reports that some children’s fingers had gotten stuck in the holes of the puppets. Last week, Mr. Cathy said in a statement that his company would “leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

People aligned with the Cathy family’s position have said they have visited the chain more frequently since its involvement in the issue became more widely known last year. Others, like Jeff Graham, the executive director of the gay rights group Georgia Equality, say they are not sure this protest will be any more successful than previous efforts, which fizzled.

Mr. Graham said he was more interested in encouraging the company to write a corporate anti-discrimination policy that includes gays and lesbians.

And he does not know, he said, if he will show up for the kiss-in. If he does, he certainly will not order a sandwich.

“Frankly, I’m a vegetarian, and it’s been 20 years since I ate there,” he said.

[-] 1 points by throaway (57) 8 years ago

And the 99% spoke today. CfA's were packed across the nation.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

A few 1000 RW wackos!!

Wake up people, the cretins are eating and breeding!!

Get out the Vote like it was 2006 and 08!!

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Colbert nailed the sob's. Thanks

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Block Voter suppression!

[-] 2 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

In case anyone is interested, I have started an online petition at Change dot org in regards to Debt Neutrality.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/debt-neutrality-petition-at-change-dot-org-please-/

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

If You Are Not Outraged, You Are Not Paying Attention: 5 Major Ways Corporate Elites Are Degrading America

While it can be disheartening to see the smallness of those in power, don't let it get you down, for they want us to become so disheartened that we give up.

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What a paragraph! This sparse, 52-word opening of our Constitution did not merely launch a fledgling nation--but a bold experiment in democratic idealism. The rest of the document consists of details, but this carefully considered Preamble set forth our nation's purpose. It declares to all the world that the BIG goal of America--its very reason for existing--is to create a society that embraces and fosters such egalitarian values as justice, tranquility, common effort, the welfare of all, and liberty.

As Benjamin Franklin put it at the time, "America's destiny is not power, but light." The light is our historic commitment to the common good, shared prosperity, and a government of, by, and for the People.

Whatever happened to that audacious reach, that grand vision, that proud progressive purpose? We know, of course, that our nation has never attained the fullness of this ideal, but over the decades, generation after generation has at least strived to get closer to it--and made impressive progress. But today, some 224 years after the penning of the Preamble, America's corporate-financial-political establishment is fleeing the light, insisting that it's no longer possible or even desirable to pursue those democratic ideals that make our country important--and make it work.

What's happened is that, from Wall Street to Washington, we have too many five-watt bulbs sitting in 100-watt sockets. As a result of their dimness, America's uniting and constructive ethic of "We're all in this together" and "Together we can" is being supplanted by a shriveled, dispiriting ethic that exalts plutocratic selfishness and scorns the public interest as intrusive, wasteful, ideologically impure, and morally ruinous. They're pushing us toward a forbidding Kochian jungle in which there is no "we"--money rules, everyone's on their own, and such matters as justice, general welfare, tranquility, and posterity are none of society's damned business. The nation of no-can-do

In recent years, acolytes of the far right have contrived yet another litmus test of ideological purity to divide "real Americans" (themselves) from those who obviously hate America (all who do not agree with them). "American exceptionalism," they call it.

America has most certainly been exceptional in many ways, thanks to the pluck and democratic determination of grassroots folks. But that's not glorious enough for these extreme nationalists, who insist that ours is a God-ordained exceptionalism. They preach that ours is both a Christian nation and one bathed in the blood of free enterprise, thus God has blessed us with a moral superiority that lifts the USofA ever-sparkling above all nations that ever existed.

Never mind that our national morality has a few conspicuous hickies on it (ask a Native American, for example), the believers believe... and that makes it true. They're also demanding that others believe --or be branded un-American. To get right with the rightists, such current seekers of the presidency as Mitt, Newt, Rick, the other Rick, and Michele have bowed to the exceptionalists and are blissfully spreading this new gospel through their campaign speeches and websites. (Really, friends, how credible is America's claim to exceptionalism with those six carrying the flag?)

The cruelest irony is that America's genuine exceptionalism (our historic striving for a more egalitarian society) is under relentless assault by the political army of the hokey exceptionalists. These are the holy crusaders of the plutocratic, autocratic, theocratic, and kleptocratic right--an army that includes the laissez-fairyland Koch brothers; the Boehner-Cantor-Ryan triumvirate in the US House; off-the-wall senators like Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe; the gaggle of goofy governors wreaking havoc in Arizona, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, and elsewhere; Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and other slash-and-burn political operatives; corporate front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Cato Institute; and such ceaseless propaganda pushers as Rupert Murdoch's line-up of Fox TV yakkers.

Far from fostering exceptionalism, these heavily financed forces are rumbling throughout the country to crush the union movement, eliminate wage protections, privatize everything from schools to Social Security, kill poverty programs, un-regulate Wall Street, repeal environmental rules, suppress voter turnout, stack the courts, corporatize elections, and de-legitimize the democratic values expressed by the founders in the Preamble. They are dynamiting the underpinnings of the middle class and taking away the public tools that ordinary people must have to do the extraordinary things that truly make America great. (CONTINUED:)

http://www.alternet.org/story/153437/if_you_are_not_outraged%2C_you_are_not_paying_attention%3A_5_major_ways_corporate_elites_are_degrading_america?paging=off

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (2490) from Fredericksburg, TX 8 years ago

definately close enough for one horseshoe or hand grenade.

[-] 1 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 8 years ago

Your post takes the "show" I'm watching and takes it to a deeper level. The two parties are not exactly the same, as you pointed out on many issues.

When I recall political campaigns starting with LBJ vs Barry Goldwater, I now believe that the results that come from the elections, (especially recent ones), are policies that benefit organized corporate America. Every time, regardless of the party that wins, the results are the same and the extent of the inequality grows faster every year. My conclusion is that corporate America is in control of our government and the Dems vs Repubs political campaigns are just a show to convince Americans that their vote is important.

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You are so so so right!!! We do have to make sure that "diabolical" (as you put it so well) RepubliCons do NOT steal this election with Voter Suppression!!

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/416949/july-25-2012/mitt-romney-s-anglo-saxon-connection

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

What it boils down to is who do they listen to? If a Democrat listens to the corporate lobbyist and the Republican listens to the financial lobbyist, but neither listens to you and I, there really is no difference.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

The parties are vastly different.

One fights for the 99% and would succeed more, and attempt more if the people would rise up and pressure all pols, and move this country left.

The other party proudly trumpets the conservative policies that benefit the 1% plutocrats.

Big difference. Don't believe the fallacy they are the same.

[-] 4 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

And when they hear the squeaky wheel it gets all the grease. That's why Big $ Kings and their servant RepubliCons are soooo unctuous.

We have to SHOW UP! Get out the Vote! And make sure Voters aren't suppressed.

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

President proposes and Congress disposes: Obama should have asked for more and I believe he did, but Congress only spent what they did to plug the giant gaping hole Republicon Bush left in our economy! Probably the most important thing the stimulus did was save millions of lives (we know you Cons don't give a shit about that) from the devastation of abject poverty and the mutilation of military action conducted on the starving masses attacking the rich!!

People, do you want to get your way from government for a change??? GET OUT THE VOTE!!! Turn out a 90% and watch what happens!!! We will get the government that the 1% is enjoying by design!! Quit being manipulated!! VOTE!!!

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Manipulated? Both Reps and Dems are afraid to step outside their political cages and vote for a person. The door is wide open, but they refuse to leave their prison

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Because we allowed this current Citizens United aberration. In order to serve, all pols need vast amounts of money.

People, do you want to get your way from government for a change??? GET OUT THE VOTE!!! Turn out a 90% and watch what happens!!! We will get the government that the 1% is enjoying by design!! Quit being manipulated!! VOTE!!!

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

As if parties did not exist!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Repubs want to end Social Security Dems do not

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 8 years ago

Your thread title should have read.... Are Rats and Cons the same?

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You should take a running head first dive into your toilet!!! 10, 10, 10, 10!

[-] 0 points by commonsense11 (195) 8 years ago

Poor disillusioned individual. Unable to recognize the faults of both parties. No wonder our Country is in such a mess. That's all we need are more halfwits casting votes for the same old idiots.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Democratic platform draft includes marriage equality plank: sources July 30, 2012

(No RepubliCon Equivalent | Just One of Millions)

The Democratic Party platform drafting committee approved on Sunday language endorsing same-sex marriage in addition to other pro-LGBT positions as part of the Democratic Party platform, according to two sources familiar with the drafting process.

Retiring gay Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who sits on the committee, told the Washington Blade on Monday that the 15-member panel unanimously backed the inclusion of a marriage equality plank after a national hearing over the weekend in Minneapolis, in which several witnesses testified in favor of such language.

“I was part of a unanimous decision to include it,” Frank said. “There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it.”

Frank emphasized that support for marriage equality is a position that has been established for the Democratic Party, from the president, who endorsed marriage equality in May, to House Democratic lawmakers who voted to reject an amendment reaffirming the Defense of Marriage Act earlier this month.

A Democratic National Committee staffer, who is familiar with the process and spoke on condition of anonymity, said the language in the platform approved on Sunday not only backs marriage equality, but also rejects DOMA and has positive language with regard to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The exact wording of the language wasn’t immediately available.

The platform is still in a draft phase. Writers of the platform are now set to come up with close-to-final draft that will be presented before the full platform committee in Detroit from Aug. 10 to Aug. 12. That committee will discuss amendments before presenting the platform at the convention in Charlotte in September.

A number of witnesses were to testify in favor of a marriage equality plank in the platform: Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry; Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign; Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage-four incurable breast cancer and a plaintiff in Servicemembers Legal Defense Network’s lawsuit against the Defense of Marriage Act; Michael Macleod-Ball, the American Civil Liberties Union’s chief of staff for the Washington Legislative Office; and Aaron Zellhoefer, a gay delegate to the Democratic National Convention representing the National Stonewall Democrats. Related Stories

Conn. federal court latest to rule against DOMA

Fast Five Fix: July 31

Ugandan gay activist stresses LGBT equality key to fighting HIV/AIDS

Solomon, whose organization has been leading the effort to include a marriage equality plank in the platform, praised the committee in a statement for the adopting such language.

“We are grateful for the Platform Drafting Committee’s unanimous vote to include the freedom to marry in its draft of the Democratic Party platform,” Solomon said. “As I testified to the Committee on Friday, the Democratic Party has a noble history of fighting for the human and civil rights of all Americans. We are proud that the Committee is including language that will ensure the Party is leading the way forward in supporting marriage for loving and committed same-sex couples and their families.”

Zeke Stokes, an SLDN spokesperson, said following Morgan’s testimony that Frank spoke favorably about marriage equality and expressed the sentiment that such language would wind up in the platform.

“He spoke very passionately of his support for marriage equality following the Morgans’ testimony and left a strong impression that he believed it would ultimately be included,” Stokes said.

On Monday, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest deferred a question from National Public Radio’s Ari Shapiro on the adopted language to the DNC. The DNC didn’t respond to the Blade’s request to comment.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

The "disillusion" is created by the fact that there is another party running things.

One that is deeply in bed with the military industrial complex.

One that misrepresents itself constantly.

Because it can afford to, thanks to us.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conservative-Millennials--by-Thom-Hartmann-120729-503.html

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

R = kill GM D = save HM
D = end Iraq R = start Iraq
D = anti alec R = pro alec
D = pro 99% R = pro 1%
D = anti privatization R = pro privatization
D = pro jobs R = anti jobs
D = pro tax the rich R = pro tax the middle class

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

D and R = humanoid bipeds

D and R = northern hemisphere

D and R = omnivores

My Dem mailman for example, angry that Cons got away with forcing the USPS to overfund their pension plan 75 years in advance just to bankrupt them, stepped on one of my ferns.

In fact if American Voter turnout percentage equaled Big $ turnout, Kucinich would not be looking for a new job, and Teabags and Cons would not be holding the country hostage.

Even Governor Twit wouldn't be promising the NAACP that he was their man, and Bush would never have been anywhere close to the WH, and no one would have to Vote for things they did not believe in to stay politically viable if Americans just turned out.

But hey, it's a free country, and there's hardly anything we HAVE to do, so it's way easier to pout and cry and then bitch and complain that things aren't going right. There's no law against intellectual dishonesty!! And there isn't one for democratic dereliction, either!! So you can't make me!! Na, na, na, na, nah!!

Big $ runs every--thing, so you--ou guy--uys su--uck!!!

Vote Australian Tortoise November 6th!!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

D and R = pro-bombing foreign countries.

D and R = utilizing Black Water

D and R = bailouts for fraudulent banks after deregulating them

D's and R's have a lot of differences.... but on a lot of BIG issues... they're both the problem..

My democrat senator for example fully supported the war in Iraq.

In fact funding for the war in Iraq passed with bipartisan support.

Even Senator Obama voted yes for funding the war in Iraq. National Defense Authorization Act of 2005 -2008 all had his YEA vote to fund Bush's wars. He should have tried voting YEA for impeachment of Bush.

But hey... they just have to sign those NDAA's don't they? LOL

Kucinich voted no for the NDAA of 2012 which allowed indefinite detention. Kucinich also tried to impeach Bush. Where was Obama on that? Evidence of war crimes were massive during the Bush era.

Money in politics is the only reason the "choices" are who they are.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

I never said there were no similarities
would your rather have your liver removed, or a kidney? vote for what is best for America - not for what makes yo feel good

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

No thanks. I don't listen to propaganda.

Also you're using Bush's propaganda. If you don't support the wars you're with Al Qaeda.

The truth is I can oppose both Mittens and Obama just like I can oppose the wars and Al Qaeda.. Propaganda is bullshit

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You are a petulant child. And a reform saboteur. Does that change your diaper?

President proposes and Congress disposes: Obama should have asked for more and I believe he did, but Congress only spent what they did to plug the giant gaping hole Republicon Bush left in our economy! Probably the most important thing the stimulus did was save millions of lives (we know you Cons don't give a shit about that) from the devastation of abject poverty and the mutilation of military action conducted on the starving masses attacking the rich!!

People, do you want to get your way from government for a change??? GET OUT THE VOTE!!! Turn out a 90% and watch what happens!!! We will get the government that the 1% is enjoying by design!! Quit being manipulated!! VOTE!!!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

You are just acting like a clown because I do not support Barack Obama.

I do not support Obama because of his foreign policy. That's it.

I find your commentary hilarious. The propaganda is strong with this one. LOL

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Whatever you you think of Obama, a return of a Con administration to the WH would be Bush-Cheney on steroids! And more RepubliCons in Congress, state legislatures and governorships will make what happened as a result of 2010 seem like a clown and pony birthday party!

As we witnessed in 2010, Petulance and Ignorance won't be excuses for the inevitable damage that will ensue, and the culpability of those who discouraged democratic participation.

Get out the Vote people! We have a whole lot of STUPID to make up for!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Again I will say this

In the 2008 primaries money in politics got the democrats to vote for a pro-war and pro-patriot act democrat over the only democrat running that actually tried to impeach Bush.

In 2012 money in politics created Mitt Romney a pro-war/pro-black water/pro-being terrible and again the same democrat that is pro-war/pro-black water. In my state I am a registered democrat and Obama ran unopposed in the democrat primaries. That was bullshit. Money in politics destroyed the primary process and ever since then whoever has the most money almost always wins. It's bullshit. And you can't deny that.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Repeat that foolish, ignorant and naive nonsense all you want, it will still be foolish, ignorant and naive nonsense!

If a primary doesn't result in a candidate who can WIN, then we repeat Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore.

Personally, I think Jerry Brown was more Kucinich before Kucinich and more electable than Kucinich, but he didn't make the primary in 92 and Clinton did. But the Cons worked Clinton over like they did Carter and like they have escalated with Obama.

Your political naivete is undeniable!

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

So you don't think money in politics is a problem?

Why is it the people with the most corporate backing almost always seem to win the primaries? They get more media coverage, are accepted in to debates while others are not because they have no money raised and they don't have the initial corporate backing that helped them flood the airwaves to get known by people. It happens.

You really think out of all the other democrats in 2008 that Obama is still the best one? At least Hilary said if she became president that she wouldn't use mercenaries like Black Water anymore.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Of course, the RepubliCon Citizens United decision exacerbates one of the greatest threats to our democracy: the sinister, pervasive and insidious exploitation and influence of it by Big Organized $. Old news I have explained to you many many times.

Because we have neglected our democracy (with the greatest non-participation in the world), Big $ (recognizing a great deal when they see it) snatched it up and placed their people in offices to run things as Big $ tells them. And Big $ owns the RepubliCon party to fill these positions, but there are some DINOs to make it look bipartisan, and confuse the inexperienced and detached. More old news.

Yes, Big $ own the media, give the most in campaign funds, and exclude other candidates from participating. Even more old news.

And yes, Obama was the best Dem candidate, because he made it the hardest for RepubliCons and Big $ to steal the election. See, if you don't win, not what you say or what you do, nothing! else matters! Really old... not news... ancient knowledge.

If this still doesn't sink in, I can't help you. Ask Zendog, he likes to teach.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

or who ever gets free coverage in the primaries raises the most money

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Excellent point.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Like your head.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Please don't fall for the Republicans don't support teachers and unions and so on line.

The bigger story is that for the past few decades democrat politicians have traded unrealistic pension promises for state union votes, and you should consider questioning that as well.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

If pension seem to be problem it is because they have done poorly in the investment markets and probably related to the LIBOR minipulation scandal we are only now hearing about.

We can't fix the economic problems created by the 1% plutocrats by cutting middle calss job creators benefits/income/services.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Pension funds have created HUGE PROBLEMS in the U.S. The funds were for the most part invested with Wall Street Overseas. Eventually, something actually was created with that money.

Much lower cost (and usually cheaper quality) products many times made off of the backs of underage and overworked employees came from those offshore investments.

So State pension funds took money and rather than invest it locally, got bigger up front profits from wall street. However, this basically screwed over small business in the U.S.

States Bureaucracies will never admit they LOVE tax import revenue and retail tax revenue and HATE dealing with local small business requirements.

As Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

So pension funds hurt small business? Thats ridiculous.

If any problem exists with pensions it's because the republicsan 1% plutocrats crashed the world economy (partially to decimate this worker pensions). and also manipulated the LIBOR rate.

Simple. It was the 1% plutocrats with their republican co conspirators.

Republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressive. Vote out pro 1% plutocrat republicans

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

lol, you have that canned answer elsewhere. I gave a step by step explanation how pension fund investment overseas have come back to harm small business, you just repeat a canned response.

Democrats have been selling out for union votes for the past 30 years in exchange for pension promises that eventually could not be paid.

However, there still is a solution, and that is incentivize the paying down of consumer debt by eliminating interest rate charges, fees and penalties on existing debt.

hence, the online petition. http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-create-debt-neutrality-rights-for-paying-down-credit-cards-student-loans

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Please. The banksters crashed the world economy. They should be punished by forcing them to forgive 1/2 the cr card debt of all working/middle class Americans. Banks have already made back the principle plus with the huge interest they charge.

Since the crash they created also lost 40% of home value they should be made to refinance all underwater homes with low rates with the new value as the basis.

Pension funds were destroyed by republican 1% plutocrats. No canned answer here. That is what happened.

Wall street invested in outsourcing of jobs with pension money. That is moronic. Understand. doesn't make sense. It's bullshit!

it was bankster credit default swaps (bad mtgs) and LIBOR manipulation that created state pension funds problems.

Don't try to blame dems for your republican attacks on good honest hard working american pensions.

Despicable.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I agree with part of what you are saying. Do you realize that no more interest rate charges on existing debt is actually a better deal than cutting debt in half and still having interest rate charges, penalties and fees being tacked on?

Pension promises for democrat votes has been going on for at least the past 30 years.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Is it better than both reducing debt in half and eliminating interest, fees, and penalties?

That'll work. Lets do that.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

If the amount borrowed is reduced, it will create a lot of anger among the tens of millions of people who have had debt and either paid the price with a damaged credit rating, or paid it down over time.

That's why paying what is owed, but no more interest rate charges, penalties or fees is the ideal compromise. I'm not against undoing the penalties and fees for the past year or two either.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Ooh. And why wouldn't these "tens of millions" be angry for not benefitting from not having to pay interest, fees, and penalties.

No. I can support your idea. I of course support my idea. The jealous people will have to get over themselves. Perhaps we can have a program for the jealous ones where they get low rates for future purchases.

Anyway. good luck with your idea. It's a good one. And low rates (under 10%) s/b permanent.

Peace

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Jealous might be the wrong word to use. I think angry is a more accurate word to use. You know, just like the anger at OWS.

People who have student loan debt still got an advantage over the people who did not get loans. Having the education and not paying for it will across create anger among your peers.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

OWS anger appears to be about the 1% rigging the system and takin our money. The anger you describe is ofsomeone who is angry 'cause somone else is getting relief and I'm not.

Seems very different. One seeks justice, the other seeks to stop someone elses relief (jealous much)

Peace

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

It's not relief, it's money that was borrowed and used. Relief is what Debt Neutrality is, it relieves the tension of seeing the debt not go down when payments are being made every month.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

These banks have already made back the principle borrowed several times over with loan shark level interest rates. Where ever that has occured banks should be made to retroactively apply lower interest rates (refund past fees and penalties) and recalculate the principle down.

Is that better for you?

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

On the solutions page, the very concept you are talking about is laid out. http://www.credit-card-cap.com/3.html

Some of the ideas from my website made it into the Credit Card Reform Act of 2009, however, the most important ones did not.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

I am all for limiting the total profit that can be made on a loan. I wrote about that concept back in 2007, then did an update both in 2008 and early 2009 on my www.credit-card-cap.com website. http://www.credit-card-cap.com/3.html

I'm not sure what the limit should be, but there should be a profit limit, at which point the debt gets paid off interest free.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

just unemployed without health insurance and recognition

and franklly disappointed

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

publicly financed campaigns. yes. investments to encourage greentech jobs I support. infrastructure investment also. that needs to be nonn partisan use of our tax payer dollars. If you wanna cut govt investments we can start be cutting the military budget in half. We will still be more powerful than all our adversaries combined.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Jobs bill would include fed jobs,money states to keep state jobs, investment in private infrastructure,and private greentech jobs too.

no good?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

no private investments

we all know the government likes to and money to it's buddies

get money out of politics

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I am also not working, without health insurance.

Disappointed with the lack of cooperation from republicans, on jobs bills, and health care public option.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the job bills should be government jobs

those jobs should include public health

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I don't understand. What are you tryin to say?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

just talking about myself

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

This Republican Economy By PAUL KRUGMAN (Nobel Prize Winner) Published: June 3, 2012

What should be done about the economy? Republicans claim to have the answer: slash spending and cut taxes. What they hope voters won’t notice is that that’s precisely the policy we’ve been following the past couple of years. Never mind the Democrat in the White House; for all practical purposes, this is already the economic policy of Republican dreams.

OMG! R U gonna argue Cons are Pro-Teacher and Pro-Union???!!!

So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

Over all, the picture for America in 2012 bears a stunning resemblance to the great mistake of 1937, when F.D.R. prematurely slashed spending, sending the U.S. economy — which had actually been recovering fairly fast until that point — into the second leg of the Great Depression. In F.D.R.’s case, however, this was an unforced error, since he had a solidly Democratic Congress. In President Obama’s case, much though not all of the responsibility for the policy wrong turn lies with a completely obstructionist Republican majority in the House.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

As I said, for all practical purposes this is already a Republican economy.

As an aside, I think it’s worth pointing out that although the economy’s performance has been disappointing, to say the least, none of the disasters Republicans predicted have come to pass. Remember all those assertions that budget deficits would lead to soaring interest rates? Well, U.S. borrowing costs have just hit a record low. And remember those dire warnings about inflation and the “debasement” of the dollar? Well, inflation remains low, and the dollar has been stronger than it was in the Bush years.

Put it this way: Republicans have been warning that we were about to turn into Greece because President Obama was doing too much to boost the economy; Keynesian economists like myself warned that we were, on the contrary, at risk of turning into Japan because he was doing too little. And Japanification it is, except with a level of misery the Japanese never had to endure.

So why don’t voters know any of this?

Part of the answer is that far too much economic reporting is still of the he-said, she-said variety, with dueling quotes from hired guns on either side. But it’s also true that the Obama team has consistently failed to highlight Republican obstruction, perhaps out of a fear of seeming weak. Instead, the president’s advisers keep turning to happy talk, seizing on a few months’ good economic news as proof that their policies are working — and then ending up looking foolish when the numbers turn down again. Remarkably, they’ve made this mistake three times in a row: in 2010, 2011 and now once again.

At this point, however, Mr. Obama and his political team don’t seem to have much choice. They can point with pride to some big economic achievements, above all the successful rescue of the auto industry, which is responsible for a large part of whatever job growth we are managing to get. But they’re not going to be able to sell a narrative of overall economic success. Their best bet, surely, is to do a Harry Truman, to run against the “do-nothing” Republican Congress that has, in reality, blocked proposals — for tax cuts as well as more spending — that would have made 2012 a much better year than it’s turning out to be.

For that, in the end, is the best argument against Republicans’ claims that they can fix the economy. The fact is that we have already seen the Republican economic future — and it doesn’t work.

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

THIS IS EXACTLY WHY you should support Debt Neutrality. http://www.change.org/petitions/congress-create-debt-neutrality-rights-for-paying-down-credit-cards-student-loans

Krugman conveniently ignores the THREE TRILLION DOLLARS in consumer debt that is siphoning 10 to 15 billion dollars a MONTH from the U.S. economy in the form of interest rate charges.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Your link has nothing to do with the Debt Neutrality link or the Krugman cut and past article,. The Debt Neutrality link relates to Krugman's convenient omission of the 3 trillion dollars in consumer debt that has shut down main street.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

How the fuck do you expect to win Noble prizes if you go around including everything.

Let's include Twit's tax returns!

[-] 1 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

lol, I really don't understand your point.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Spending is out of control, and there is no coming back. QE4 is right around the corner.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Spending is fine. We must expand some spending. The problem is we have cut the taxes of the wealthy money hoarders too much. 90% tax rate on millionaires. They don't create jobs! middle class consumer demand does!

Cut taxes and debt for the middle class. Raise taxes on the wealthy plutocrats! They created the problem.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Do you even understand what QE4 is?

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Is 'dat a cruise ship?

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Are your cookies from 7-11??

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

How old are you rpc? Im going to guess around 50-55?

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

How dumb are u? I'll say 80-85!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Good one dude!!

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

http://vimeo.com/14847387# strategy of the Republicon Class War

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Capitalism, like any other economic structure, is only corrupted to the level that the political class (in this case teh US People) allow it to be.

Not a single banker in jail after the biggest heist in the history of the planet? And the only ones upset are the few that are in Occupy?

Thats a sad display of eslf governing.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

That's a sad display of posting.

[-] 0 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

They're very similar in that both suffer from intellectual schizophrenia.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

meaningless insults. No substance in your comments.

Useless

[-] -2 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

You rail against capitalism, corporatism, and corporate imperialism... and you decry out-sourcing, while you simultaneously support NAFTA and CAFTA-DR.

You rail against income inequality while you simultaneously support illegal immigration which undermines the value of labor in a market already stressed.

The Conservatives are guilty, too - they rail against open-borders but decry the Fed expansion necessary to curtail it.

It's just line after line after line of intellectual schizophrenia that must be reconciled if anything is to move forward.

You are not part of the solution - you are the problem.

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You don't know what your talkin about. What am I railin against? What do I support. Are you fantasizing? Do you thnk you're talkin to someone else?

Get it straight huh.

[-] -1 points by Porkie (-255) 8 years ago

Yea, that post was directed at a more general "you."

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Is that a mirage or words you don't comprehend??

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

no they're not the same

they are different on several issues

but they both

kill brown people in foreign countries

bail out the fraudulent banks after deregulating them caused the need for the bail outs

and they both support a monetary system and tax system that benefits the 1% instead of using it to build our cities and create jobs.

Really a 3 or 4% tax hike on the mega rich? That's all Obama is fighting for. Let's go pre-Reagan.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You struggle to find similarities to minimizethe crimes of your repubs, and ignore the progress dems fight for and get past your repubs.

More tax increases on wealthy is good. If people would support all efforts (even small successes) we can then expand pre reagan. If we attack the pols pushing tax increases on wealthy we will be shooting ourselves in our foot and serving the 1% pro plutocrat repubs.

But this is your goal isn't it.

The parties are vastly different. Elect progressives, Vote out pro plutocrat republicans

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Bush killed a lot of innocent people.

Obama killed many innocent people.

Pretty sure that sums up the crimes.

One of these days it would be nice for you not to waste your time by calling me a republican.

A claim that is 100% false as I have never once voted for a republican.

I voted for Obama in 2008. It wasn't until 2011 that I realized he was a warmonger fraud that works with Goldman Sachs. I fell for the 1%'s propaganda of the failed 2 party system that has hijacked the government.

And yes Bush was a warmonger fraud too who also worked with the banks.

Obama and Bush both supported the TARP bailouts too.

I don't care which is worse... because they're both terrible.

Do you also think anarchists are republicans too?

LOL you are a joke sometimes dude.

And enjoy that insult because I'm sick of your crap calling anyone that disagrees with Obama and his war crimes a republican.

Being anti-war does not make you a republican. Being anti-war means you support peace. Republican do not support peace.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 8 years ago

I keep telling them that Trevor, that not supporting Obama is not the same as being a Republican, but it does no good whatsoever. The veiled insults continue. If you don't support the sitting Pres your an enemy of the people. It's fucking ridiculous.

And VQ claims he doesn't stoop to insults.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

yeah it's pretty funny though. It's pretty much their only argument.

[-] 1 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You're both a total waste of time.

Why not go sabotage a RepubliCon site?

This is not an Anarchy site! That would be the nearest bus stop!!

We have a Class War to fight! Voting is how we do it!!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Pres Obama has begun the long slow process of undoing the republican fear mongering endless war on terror.

Pres obama has reduced the death the US military is perpetrating around the world.

Nothing happens immediately. We must support the progress and those people taking the steps towards progress, or we will be playing into the hands of the plutocrat war mongers.

The dems are light years ahead of repubs. If repubs had there way we would be in several more countries with hundreds of thousands of troops killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressives. Vote out war mongering republicans

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

also let me know when Obama stops hiring mercenaries like Black Water.

How many warships are out by Iran right now? Didn't one of them shoot up some innocent civilian fishermen the other week?

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Where were you when Bush-Cheney and Rummey were shock and Awwing!!!

Obama is cleaning up their mess!

Wake the fuck up!! Read some recent history!! Put down your Anarchy manual!!

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 8 years ago

I don't think Bush himself was in the loop during that phase in history.

The current prez is up against a repug congress, and he prolly can't wait to hang up the halter, and get rid of the yoke.

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

After the utter capricious and petulant betrayal by millions of stupid new Voters in 2010 I would have told America to Fuck Off and do it yourself!!!

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

You would compare shooting a fishing boat with the 8 years of overwhelming force by Bush?

How many millions of bombs did Bush drop.? How may millions died as a result? Is a million bombs in 2 countries the same as 3000 bombs in 4?.

This dishonest comparison betrays your republican partisanship.

Pres Obama is making progress, He has cut military budget, & mercenary army use and will cut further. Repubs will not!

Vote for continued progress, and continued reducttion of bombings.

Republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressives. Vote out war mongering republicans

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

also let me know when Obama stops hiring mercenaries like Black Water.

I'm not comparing Bush and Obama. I'm saying these WARS ARE WRONG

Less bombs doesn't make it okay. It's still wrong and those bombs still murder innocent people.

Bush and Obama are war criminals. And I've already agreed with you that Bush killed more people. I said that at the top. That doesn't make murder under Obama okay.

[-] 0 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Heard about it, still BS!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

No it makes it progress!

Your ignoring of that fact. and comparing shooting a fishing boat to slaughtering millions betrays your partisanship.

You never complain about current republican failures to stop anything. Betrays your partisanship.

You never acknowledge the progress Pres Obama has made, and never acknowledge the fundamental problems created by republicans that brought us here.

Betrays your partisanship.

Republicans ARE the problem. Elect progressives. Vote out war mongering republicans

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

also let me know when Obama stops hiring mercenaries like Black Water.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

VQ is hopelessly brainwashed by party loyalty. It's really useless to engage him, unless you enjoy listening to a broken record. The Obama'ites especially have been completely seduced under the deep spell of their messiah.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I think it's funny because he refuses to address the problems in his own party ties.

I'm cool if people support Obama because they hate Romney. But it's hilarious when they develop this entire conspiracy about how Obama is forced to do the bad things he's been apart of. lolol

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

It's because they can't see shades of gray. It's all or nothing. I have a friend like that, and it applies to all aspects of his life, not just politics. It's really a handicap.

[-] -2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I've noticed this mentality mainly exists on the internet.

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 8 years ago

Rigid polarized thinking of the masses is what tyrants crave. Everything their group does is right. Everything the other group does is wrong. They can literally justify any act, even genocide because of it.

I even see some Occupy supporters do the same by supporting black bloc and other violent tactics. If a mind is not flexible enough to see the lies within their own group, then it will be unable to see the truth within any other group.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

That is why I advocate for supporting or confronting issues - with a guiding principal - healthy for ALL.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

He has reduced bombings/killings by a million. That ain't enough to say we're making progress?

Then I'm afraid you are ignoring substantive progress and hung up on number of countries because that IS more than Bush,and you just want to run down the dem.

If you really cared about innocent people you would not hang on to number of country when number of bombings/killings is infinitely more relevant.

This also betrays your partisanship.

Republicans ARE the problem. Bush killed millions. Obama reduced that 1000fold.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

so thousands

and still terrifying the rest

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

It's horrible what we are doing. We must agitate to end it. But I will not say it is the same as Bush. I won't say we are bombing 4 countries instead of 2 so it's worse now. I won't pretend we haven't begun the long slow process of undoing the mess that republicans created. We've gone from killing a million to only a few thousand. That may sound callous but it is the truth.

Pres Obamas current use of the military is lightyears better than what the repubs have done or would do. I have to recognize this real progress and agitate for more progress.

End the drone bombings!

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

I won't pretend we haven't begun the long slow process

I won't pretend it needs to be slow process

we could stop dropping bombs today

[-] 4 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

'm not excusing him just pleased that he has succeeded at starting the difficult process of unwinding the Military industrial complex/1$ plutocrats money making death machine.

It is amazing he has accomplished so much in the face of the resistance of the powers that be.

Thank God Pres Obama was smart enough to navigate through the maze of repub/plutocrat efforts to continue wars (iraq, Afghan) and start new ones (Iran).

Progress! (from millions killed to hundreds)

End the Drone Bombings. Repeal NDAA, Patriot Act.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

it's not a difficult process

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

That would be great. Ain't gonna happen. No president will do that. the military industrial comlex/1% plutocrats control that situation and they are squealin like stuck pigs 'cause Pres Obama has begun to slow the killings/bombings (from a million to 3000). Has begun to end the fear mongering endless war on terror. They know the end is near. And so do I. You don't see that?

He is doing it this way because the powers that be will not allow it any other way. Its a drug for the powers that be.

I would love to see it done by executive order! we should agitate for just that but I won't attack the only guy who has made any progress at reducing the military action/death.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

the president can and may stop

I will not excuse him

he has my demand

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

"needs" to be slow. I agree. doesn't need to be. but it is slow progress!

"we could stop...today" I suppose but I don't see how. But I certainly agree we should.

Maybe if enough people wrote letters, protested against.

We could speed it up if we vote out war mongering republicans

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

just stop by executive order

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

taking power from these 1% plutocrats is the most difficult thing we could imagine. Pres Obama makes it look easy. but no one gives up power easily or quickly.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

also let me know when Obama stops hiring mercenaries like Black Water.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

So he has to do everything you want or else.?

You can't (or won't) see that we are on the path to those very goals.?

This betrays your republican partisanship.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

also let me know when Obama stops hiring mercenaries like Black Water.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I think Pres Obama is working hard for the 99% and the repubs have obstructed, filibustered, delayed, and watered down every effort.

I believe republicans ARE the problem.

Do you and I disagree on that?

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

I think 98% of repubs and 60% of the dems are the problem.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

I think anarchists are anarchists. My argument is that republican/conservative policies are the cause of all our problems.

I state further that progressive (anarchist) policies are the solution.

I finally state that dems can by dragged back from the right and serve the 99%.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

that's cool. Good for you.

You could easily say that instead of accusing people of being repubs because they think 1% politicians like Obama and Romney are the problem.

plus then people won't think you're annoying.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

mindless, repetitive, immature, unreasonableness,?

Republicans ARE the problem. Vote out war mongering republicans

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

let me know when Obama bombs less than 4 countries in a year.

also let me know when Obama stops hiring mercenaries like Black Water.

When you do this... I will stop calling Obama a warmonger. Until then you haven't done anything to show Obama has not been bombing multiple countries for years.

Both my statements are 100% factually accurate. Obama has bombed multiple countries... including countries Bush did not even touch. Obama's orders of bombs have killed innocent civilians. Obama has also utilized hired mercenaries like Black Water.

Bush was a warmonger... and so is Obama. Just look at the situation in Iran. He's crying "they've got WMDs!!!"

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

That's a little progress. And I will recognize that progress and agitate for more.

LOL

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 8 years ago

Pres Obama has reduced our killings from millions (your repubs) to hundreds.

Obama has reduced mercenary usage, and will continue. Your repubs would never do that.

ignoring these facts betrays your republican partisanship.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

your only argument is accusing people of being republicans. It's so fucking hilarious.

once again I have never voted for a republican. Do you think anarchists are republicans too? Answer that question

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

The Truth About "Class War" in America

By Richard D Wolff, Truthout | News Analysis

The Truth About Class War in America

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference 2011 in Washington, DC. Ryan, among other Republicans, has described Obama's deficit reduction plan as "class warfare."

Republicans and conservatives have done us a service by describing federal policies in terms of "class war." But by applying the term only to Obama's latest proposals to raise taxes on the rich, they have it all backward and upside down. The last 50 years have indeed seen continuous class warfare in and over federal economic policies.

But it was a war waged chiefly by business and conservatives (1% and Cons). They won, as we show below, and the mass of middle-income and poor Americans lost. Obama's modest proposal for tax increases on the rich does not begin a class war. On the contrary, it is a small, modest effort to reduce the other side's class war victories.

Big business and conservatives have worked to undo the regulations and taxes imposed on them in the wake of the Great Depression of the 1930s. Then, an upsurge in labor union organization (the Congress of Industrial Organizations sweep across basic US industries) and in membership in both the socialist and communist parties gave Franklin Delano Roosevelt the support and the pressure to tax business and the rich. He took their money to pay for the massive federal hiring program (11 million federal jobs filled between 1934 and 1941) and to start the Social Security Administration etc. He regulated their business activities to try to prevent devastating capitalist depressions from recurring in the nation's future.

Since the end of the Great Depression - and especially since the 1970s - the class warfare waged by business and its allies (most Republicans, conservatives and some Blue Dog Democrats) was successful. For example, at the end of World War II, for every dollar Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. In contrast, today, for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it gets 25 cents in taxes on business. Business and its allies successfully shifted most of its federal tax burden onto individuals.

Over the same period, the tax rates on the richest Americans fell from 91 percent in the 1950s and 1960s, and 70 percent in the 1970s to the current low rate of 35 percent. The richest Americans won that spectacular tax cut. Middle- and lower-income Americans won no such cuts, while paying a higher proportion of their income for Social Security that the rich were required to do.

In plain English, the last 50 years saw a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation from business to individuals and from rich individuals to everyone else. Class war policies, yes, but a war that victimized the vast majority of working Americans.

Of course, Republicans and conservatives carefully avoided using "class war" to describe those tax-shifting achievements over the last half-century. They wanted us to believe that all they cared about was economic growth and job creation. But when Obama now proposes modest increases in tax rates on rich individuals ("modest" because they don't begin to return to the tax rates in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s), the Republicans and conservatives howl "class warfare." Obama claims that higher taxes on the rich reduce the need for spending cuts that would slow growth and increase unemployment.

Republicans and conservatives argue that raising taxes on corporations and rich individuals punishes those who create jobs and thus will hurt efforts to reduce unemployment. Neither logic nor evidence supports their arguments. Last Friday, the US Federal Reserve reported a record quantity of cash on the books of US businesses (hoarding over $2 trillion). Despite the currently very low taxes on businesses and the rich, that cash is NOT being invested and NOT creating jobs. Nor is it being distributed to anyone else who is spending it either. Washington could tax a portion of that cash and spend it to stimulate the economy. That would be especially effective if the taxed cash were spent to hire the unemployed rather than leaving the cash idle in businesses' hoards.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett recently upset many of his fellow super rich individuals by a New York Times op-ed that he wrote. It explained that he had never met any serious investor who decided about investments based on tax rates. Rather the prospects of profits and sales made the key difference to investors. Buffett urged higher income taxes on rich Americans like himself partly because those higher taxes would not negatively impact job creation in the future just as it had not done in the past. He implied that it was becoming dangerous for capitalism's survival to keep providing the minority of rich people with lower federal tax rates than the middle and lower income majority paid.

Economists know that a long time - usually years - separates making an investment and reaping the profits from selling the output of that investment. Anyone making an investment today cannot know what tax rates will be in the future. They may be higher or lower or the same as they are today. That's why investors' decisions depend far more on real costs today and estimates about future sales, markets and prices in the future than on speculation about future tax rates. The claim that tax increases today will cut investments now, thinly disguises an effort to lower taxes on business and the rich now.

History reinforces the same point. In the 1950s and 1960s, tax rates on corporations and the rich were much, much higher than today. Yet, those years had lower unemployment and higher rates of investment and growth than today. Low tax rates on businesses and the rich do not create jobs.

Struggles over taxes always pit business and the rich against the middle-income earners and the poor. Each side seeks to shift the tax burden off of itself and on to the other side. "Class war" in that sense is nothing new. Accusing only one side of waging that war is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst. No one should be fooled. Today, business and the rich are waging class war yet again to avoid even a small, modest reverse in the huge tax cuts they won in that war over the last half-century.

[-] 0 points by OccupyNews (1220) 8 years ago

Leave the rich alone. And in return, I dream that they leave the middle class alone rather than inflicting 15 to 30 billion dollars A MONTH in interest rate charges on 3 trillion dollars in consumer debt.

Please consider signing the Debt Neutrality petition. http://occupywallst.org/forum/debt-neutrality-petition-at-change-dot-org-please-/

[-] 0 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 8 years ago

I rarely hear anyone say that the two are exactly the same or that there is no difference. On the other hand, I often hear the "my party right or wrong" crowd twist the words of those who point out the corruption in both of the major parties into something they didn't say.

[-] 3 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

Probably not the best choice of word. Especially in the context of debate with the Con Right and their annoying propensity to pettifog, in a half-witted attempt to dismiss an argument they can't win. The author's intent was to emphasize the ridiculousness of calling the parties "same," not to exclude the possibility of differences. Try replacing "exactly" with "any where near." When Dems strive to do good under constant Con sabotage and policies of regress, they don't want to being associated with them.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 8 years ago

Major detrimental decisions the last 20 years with overwhelming bipartisan support:

GATT and NAFTA Repeal Glass Steagal Allow CDS to be created (assuming you know what this is) Commodities and Futures Act Every single Federal REserve scam Iraq Invasion Afghanistan Invasion Bailouts NDAA Drone Attacks

And many many more.

With the exceptoin of the last two, the others are a direct lead to our current situation. Without them, we are not here.

There are always differences in talking points. But when it comes to legisltaion that fucks us, its always the same game.

[-] 2 points by rpc972 (628) from Portland, OR 8 years ago

You forgot mashed potatoes on Monday, and mac and cheese Thursday!!!