The good news is is to found in the democracy part of the election, ballot proposals. They have met with progressive successes. The best example is voters have overruled the insane drug war by another increment, and legalized cannabis in Oregon and Washington DC.
One thing is clear, if the people want representation they can forget it. They need to get active and do it on their own. The Republicans and Democrats have show us again and again they do not represent the American people. Only the American people can do this now.
One thing is clear, if the people want representation they can forget it. They need to get active and do it on their own. The Republicans and Democrats have show us again and again they do not represent the American people. Only the American people can do this now.
In other news, same old, same old.
The Onion said it far better than the corporate media ever could:
---
Republicans Poised to Retain Control of the Senate
WASHINGTON—With
precincts reporting GOP victories in key midterm election races nationwide,
Beltway sources confirmed Tuesday that the Republican Party is poised to retain
its complete control of the U.S. Senate. “If current polling projections are
accurate, it appears as if Republican lawmakers will hold on to power in the
Senate chamber and will continue to steer the legislative agenda with little
resistance,” political analyst Michael Barone told reporters, noting that the likely
election results will preserve the GOP’s singular authority over the direction
of the Senate, allowing Republicans to go on stymieing judicial appointments,
derailing or neutering any legislation they oppose, and obstructing President
Obama at every turn.
“With the Senate still firmly under their control, Mitch
McConnell and his Republican colleagues will persist in refusing to cede an
inch of political leverage to their Democratic rivals and will continue
blocking Democratic initiatives just as they have been. Yet again, the GOP is
in prime position to carry on dictating the course of the upper house of
Congress.” Barone went on to say that Republicans would finally relinquish
control of the Senate only when Democrats captured the 100 seats they require
to govern.
---
Hard to argue with that.
Posts
56 comments:
The best example is voters have overruled the insane drug war by another increment, and legalized cannabis in Oregon and Washington DC.
That is a good thing. I think what either party hasn't figured out yet is that young Gen X voters like myself and the new Millennial voters are far more conservative than they had believed on some issues (Abortion, Welfare) and far more liberal on others (Drug War, Gay Rights). Pretty soon those demographics will be deciding elections.
One thing is clear, if the people want representation they can forget it
They just voted for representation, and got what they voted for. This wasn't just a run-of-the-mill sweep. Illinois, Colorado and Massachusetts? Hello? There is deep dissatisfaction with Harry Reid's Senate and the Obama presidency. Clearly, Harry Ried's Senate got fired last night for poor performance. There is a deep unease in America as to the economy, ISIS, Ebola, and the scandals that as they pile up, lead Americans to believe the Dems who have maintained control over the primary mechanisms of the US government for the last eight years... aren't running the store very well.
It was a spanking. And the Dems deserved it.
Dems who have maintained control over the primary mechanisms of the US government for the last eight years...
Just the first two years for Obama.
Dems had little control of a GOP obstructed and filibustered Senate, (See Onion article) and the House and Supreme Court are very much Republican controlled.
It was a spanking. And the Dems deserved it.
I agree, but for different reasons.
They just voted for representation, and got what they voted for.
We shall see. Most Democratic voters didn’t get represented. Why should most Republican voters?
This is the problem.
Gilens and Page used a data-set of 1,779 policy issues from 1981 to 2002 to compare actual policy outcomes with the prevailing policy preferences of three income groups: “10Th income percentile (quite poor), the 50thpercentile (median), and the 90th percentile (fairly affluent).”
Not surprisingly, the policy desires of the 90 Percenters (earning at least $146,000 per year) are the most likely to become policy outcomes. If they support a policy, it has a 45% chance of being enacted. But if they oppose a policy, there is an 82% chance it will be defeated, derailed on the way to becoming a law, even if a majority of Americans support it.
These findings are more daunting when we consider that the study’s data-set ends before Citizens United, the sanctification of money as constitutionally-protected speech and the growing post-crash spike in inequality.
Ah bullshit Dave and you know it. They had the entire Congress in 2006, then a damn super-majority after 08. Then after '10 Dems still had 2/3 or the thing with the SCOTUS split, and they having half the Congress. So ends the 8 year long experiment known as full Democrat control.
The only power the GOP had was one of obstruction, stalling and the budget. And clearly after 6 years of no budget that was proven to be pretty much a toothless power.
Why should most Republican voters?
Tea Party. No bullshit. Say what you want about 'em but they do a damn fine job of holding the GOP accountable to the rank and file. That's what left could never understand about the Tea Party. It wasn't about defeating Democrats, it was about holding the GOP to what they promise the rank and file. Of course they won't hold the GOP to things you on the left want... but they don't care about what you want do they?
Oops. The correct link to the excerpt was this:
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/24/americas-surge-toward-oligarchy/
Free probably didn’t even read it anyway. It’s basically saying that moneyed interests are represented more than the majority of Americans. Which was my point about representation. The Koch Tea Party funders will be represented. The poor little authoritarian follower who works in Wal-Mart will not have his economic interests represented. He is merely a useful idiot helping his masters get more tax cuts.
The Onion joke about the Dems needing 100 in the Senate went over his head. Corpo-dems are no different from Republicans. There basically is no Left in the Democratic Party. Rahm Emmanuel called them retards, remember? I really don’t want to defend democrats, but I will defend facts and reason.
Free made his pronouncement of BS. Yet couldn’t refute the facts… That’s how authoritarians operate.
I’d like the master of BS to explain his two statements.
Dems who have maintained control over the primary mechanisms of the US government for the last eight years
The only power the GOP had was one of obstruction, stalling and the budget.
What “control” was there over obstruction? A small majority has NO CONTROL over the filibuster. And no control of the budget to boot? The Dems “controlled” neither the House nor Senate for the past four years.
Apparently the House of Representatives is not one of the “primary mechanisms of the US government”. Fact or BS? Or maybe just when the Dems are the majority. The House of Representatives was one of the “primary mechanisms of the US government” in 2006, but is not one now. Is this what he’s saying?
Apparently the Supreme Court is not one of the “primary mechanisms of the US government”. Fact or BS? He says the Court is split, but they stopped an election count to put their man in the White House. And the declared a corporation is a person entitled to human rights, and their money is free speech. Yeah, we see.
Now the question is how much “control” did the Dems have over GOP obstruction? Was the obstruction successful? Then how was that “control”?
They had the numbers for less than two years until Kennedy’s death opened the way for filibuster.
Unless Free can clear this up for us, he’s just spewing his old classic radical Right projection.
So ends the 8 year long experiment known as full Democrat control.
Yes, this is indeed proof that the House was a “primary mechanisms of the US government” in 2006, but not today.
Sounds like BS to me.
Ol' Free0352 sounds like a Republican. ;-) Couldn't imagine a libertarian cheering 'em on like he (always) does. Oh, forgive me, I forgot. Real Libertarians are against militarism in all its forms.
I suppose that's because the Tea Party is really what's dear to Free0352's heart. (Pardon me, again, for we all know he lacks one...)
My whole take on this election: The slide toward the abyss just accelerated.
The slide toward the abyss just accelerated.
And we know who will be blamed when it hits the fan...again. Since Iraq is Obama's fault, and the Bush Recession is Obama's fault, and liberals are to blame for everything else... the neo-fascist scapegoating will be fierce.
Soon the GOP's next "Patriot Act", and tax cuts for the rich, and deregulation of Wall Street will emerge from the slime.
Laws forcing women to bear rapists' children should be following shortly...because "freedom".
I have to add this victory for democracy.
Under California Proposition 47, low-level property and drug offenses including shoplifting, theft, and check fraud under $950, as well as personal illicit drug use will be reclassified from felonies to misdemeanors.
Brian Elderbroom and Ryan King with the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center wrote, "The current sentencing and correctional system in California is costly and inefficient and voters would prefer their tax dollars to be spent on education and health care rather than incarceration."
Democracy fared better than the Democrats.
Imagine that. If the Party would get a clue...and leave the corporate feeding trough.
Free probably didn’t even read it anyway. It’s basically saying that moneyed interests are represented more than the majority of Americans.
Really, I googled the "Moneyed Americans" district, couldn't find it.
So I guess we still elect Congressmen and Senators the old fashioned way. People show up and vote. So let me ask you, how many votes does warren buffet get and how many you get? Answer: ONE.
What the rich have is lots of political advertising and politicians who suck up to them to get it. That's all the have. You can choose to not vote for politicians who don't do that you know?
The Onion joke about the Dems needing 100 in the Senate went over his head
No it just, wasn't funny.
The Dems “controlled” neither the House nor Senate for the past four years.
Somebody better tell Harry Reid that because he's been majority leader since what? 2006. And he's got it all the way up till January.
Now who has things going over their head? Just stop now you guys before you hurt yourselves.
You see Dave, the government has 3 houses of government which are all separate and equal in power.
The President of the United states is the executive.
There is also a bicameral legislature of two sub-houses of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Lastly there is the Supreme Court.
Now, today as we speak Democrats control-
1/2 of the SCOTUS
1/2 of the Legislature
1/1 of the Executive.
This means Democrats currently wield more authority over the primary mechanisms of Government. Recently, Republicans have taken control of 1/1 of the Legislature, functionally making things a tie.
This concludes your civics lesson.
moneyed interests are represented more than the majority of Americans......What the rich have is lots of political advertising and politicians who suck up to them to get it.
Oh, yes, indeed. Money tends to "speak" like that. It is well represented "free speech".
Oh, yes, indeed. Money tends to "speak" like that. It is well represented "free speech".
I'm sure. And making political advertising is indeed free speech.
So I guess you shouldn't vote for that huh?
Oxymoron, Money=Free Speech!! If it takes a ton of money, it isn't "Free Speech"!!
Kulkuri,
Could anyone be so foolish as to think the founders' idea of freedom of speech would be twisted and corrupted from the right of the people to speak to power, into the right of wealth to buy elections and politicians.
Freedom of speech is now a privilege of power and wealth, rather than the right to speak to power and wealth.
Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace...and now, Money is speech.
We can see where this will get us.
...And it aint more freedom.
I see the old gang is still here, and still ganging up on Free0352!
Dave, I think you all are missing a very important point in how the government/congress was intended to operate. When you say; "What “control” was there over obstruction? A small majority has NO CONTROL over the filibuster. And no control of the budget to boot? The Dems “controlled” neither the House nor Senate for the past four years." you are missing the point that congress needs to compromise. That is how a small majority deals with filibuster, and how a minority makes sure it is represented to a degree even though it is in the clear minority. The Obama administration has not been willing to compromise, neither has Reid or Pelosi. If they had, things would be different now, and much better for the democrats. Our government was designed to prevent the tyranny that could be imposed by even a small minority.
F&B
Hey, there, F&B,
Nice to see you.
You're right about compromise being essential to governing. So is confirmation of appointees. Obama retained, and replaced with another Republican, our Defense Secretary.
The party of "Hell No!" owns the record on both filibusters and stalled appointments. How many times did the House vote to repeal Obamacare? They got the US credit rating lowered by their self-serving shutdown of government.
And that was compromise, how?
Please enlighten us on all the offers of compromise from the Republicans, if you can. Seems to me, promoting a health care plan essentially devised by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by a Republican named Romney, would indicate some measure of compromise. But not to the party of "Hell NO!" dedicated to obstruct and deny everything in order to insure a party over people political agenda. And yes, both parties do this, but the GOP are clearly the masters of subverting and crushing progress and majority interests.
Yes, MOST Americans prefer a minimum wage increase, firearm background checks, and keeping most of Obamacare.
ALL of these are blocked by the dictatorship of the minority.
For a glimpse of how corporatist the Dems really are, watch them timidly submit to the trade agreements and other items on the corporatist agenda.
Obama is also following the GOP in corporate written trade agreements that will become law of the land. (We know how well THAT works for our workers.)
Our democratic republic is under control of moneyed interests. "Free $peech" dominates the agenda.
See my first comment in this thread for documentation of this point.
This aint no democratic republic anymore, in case you missed it.
When the truth is revealed (and it's not difficult to see -- one just has to take the time to look), right-wingers like Free0352 and FandB go silent. Intuitively they know, but their massive egos always step in the way.
It's the human condition -- it's just that some of us have transcended its limitations.
There's frankly not a lot left to comprise on. Dems aren't interested in working with GOP, GOP not interested in working with Dems. Why? Too much difference on some key issues. Name one key GOP issue you're willing to see Dems give ground on? Yeah, thought so.
Name one key Dem issue you're willing to see the GOP give ground on? Yeah, thought so.
Free0352: "Too much difference on some key issues."
On about 85% of key policy issues, they're exactly the same. Only other issues are wedge issues -- like, for example, deciding to control or not control women's vaginas.
Otherwise they're exactly the same. I believe you know my term for them: Corporatists.
But as far as conspiratorial agendas that aren't theoretical, the GOP showed their true colors at the Caucus Room on January 20, 2009.
Yes, watch how the Republicrats, and so-called "libertarians" unite for their common masters and push for corporate written trade agreements to supplant the laws of our land.
And Free0352 wonders why I refer to him as a "tool".
If he were a American colonist during the Revolutionary War, he surely would have been a Loyalist to the crown.
Name one key Dem issue you're willing to see the GOP give ground on? Yeah, thought so
1. Drug decriminalization.
2. Gay Marriage
3. Immigration Reform
4. Defense Spending
5. Judicial Reform.
Care for some other's Dave?
Unlike you I'm not a radical extremist.
You are an extremist and support a political ideology based on lies and willful ignorance, which makes the poor more poor, encourages the tyrannical which makes people world wide less free at home and aboard and has in every case its been used crushes personal freedom and spread misery through out America.
I am a moderate politically, who sees the good in both the GOP and Dem parties, and can also see where both are wrong. You blindly adhere to socialism and class hatred, the byproduct of your mean spirited and hateful worldview that hurts America and the American people when too many share your warped belief system. You have no ideas beyond the destruction of wealth and the tearing down of those you perceive are more successful than you are.
In short, you're so wrong you're actually a bad person because your ideas have consequences for us all, and they are all horrible.
1. Drug decriminalization.
2. Gay Marriage
3. Immigration Reform
4. Defense Spending
5. Judicial Reform.
Nice list. Unfortunately #1 is not the agenda of either party. #2 has only recently been accepted by Obama. The courts are making the relevant decisions on this. #3 is open to interpretation. Both parties say they are for it, but with divergent policies. Does your idea of Immigration Reform align with Obama's? And what is the Dems' Defense spending policy that you agree with? It seems at one point you were grousing about cuts to the military.
And as with #3, what aspect of Judicial Reform do you mean?
Perhaps you have moderate inclinations, however unclear they may be.
I can't think of a single moderate position in the GOP. Every policy and initiative they have directly supports the agenda of economic elites to the detriment of the American worker. And they have bi-partisan support on corporate written trade agreements.
I prefer to retain my Second Amendment rights and would oppose confiscation, but that isn't in the Dems platform. Perhaps I'm moderate there as well.
Now when someone regurgitates the FOX(R) Limbaugh propaganda about progressives' "envy and hate for the rich", he shows a decidedly partisan and immoderate nature. Not wanting a dictatorship by the new aristocracy is not radical. Support for the vanishing democratic republic has become the "radical" position in our corrupt system.
When the radical "we the corporations" replaces "we the people", it becomes apparent where the moderate position would be. It is Liberals who are taking the conservative/moderate perspective as the Right pushes for radical re-interpretation of the Constitution.
That is the great threat to our freedom and democracy.
Socialized health care and retirement benefits do not make a dictatorship, but corporate personhood can only be dictatorial and antidemocratic. They are writing our laws for their own bottom line. Corporate written trade agreements become law of the land.
All liberals and moderates, and most conservatives, support Social Security and Medicare.
It is the radical Koch infested GOP that wants to privatize these vital public services, against the will of the great majority of Americans. A moderate would agree that this is the real mean-spirited and hateful position.
The Right is radical, and the changes they have made are hurting the American people more than all the unions and social safety nets combined.
Freedom and representative democracy perishes as corporatism takes control.
Hey Jefferson's Guardian - just don't have time for this much anymore, but after the election I wanted to troll around a little and see what was being said about it on the blogs. Of course Dave Dubya and you were at the top of my list!
Dave, I won't be getting into any lengthy debates, but I'm sure when you refer to what the American People want, you're referring to the 2/3 who didn't vote. You and Obama can hear them clearly.
My point remains, the way to actually get things done in Washington is through compromise. Compromise comes from open and healthy debate, maybe even a little horse-trading. The democrats shut that down while they controlled both the house and the senate. Harry Reid has prevented republican sponsored bills from ever coming up for vote. He is the roadbloack but soon he will be gone.
Compromise has to start at the top. Obama has to express a true willingness to discuss, negotiate, and compromise or he will be a lame duck for the next two years. It is important to note that the best legislation will be the result of negotiation and compromise. None of us are all knowing - not me, or you, or Jefferson, or Free. Not Obama, or Reid, or Boehner. We can come up with a better solution working together than any of us can alone.
If the democrats are willing to compromise, the republicans will work with them. If the democrats and Obama continue playing the same games they have been playing for the past six years, nothing will get done. Obama will set the tone as to whether the next two years will be adversarial or cooperative, just as he has for the past six.
Jefferson - regarding a comment you made about Free... It seems to me that the Revolutionary War was fought over (mainly) the right to self-determination and against taxation without representation. It is the progressives/democrats in this country who continue to usurp We the People's right to self-determination (e.g. obamacare) and who continue to tax and spend uncontrollably. In my view, Free would have been fighting against England (as my ancestors did) and it seems the democrats would have been the loyalists. But hey, that's just me.
F&B
F&B,
Maybe you forgot the no compromise party of “Hell, NO!”
Look no further than Obamacare for Democratic appeasement, or concessions, to the Republicans.
Obamacare's hidden parentage
ON THE surface, it looks totally partisan. Not a single Republican voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare". But the law is filled with concessions to them. A new computer analysis counts the GOP policy ideas that overlap with other bills that made it into the law: 3% from the House and 8% from the Senate. In fact, when "mark-up" bills are excluded—basically, amendments and legislative re-writes—11% and 28% of policy ideas from Congressional and Senate Republicans, respectively, align.
Free's loyalty to the economic elites, aristocracy, and empire of today would strongly indicate his hypothetical loyalty to the same of the colonial period.
FandB: "In my view, Free would have been fighting against England (as my ancestors did) and it seems the democrats would have been the loyalists. But hey, that's just me."
Yes, it is just you. (See next remark from Dave D.)
(By the way, you mistakenly view me as a Democrat for some unknown reason. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Neither am I a defender of the GOP. I'm adamantly against both wings of the "Corporatist Party", which I see as the destroyer of our democratic values.)
Dave Dubya: "Free's loyalty to the economic elites, aristocracy, and empire of today would strongly indicate his hypothetical loyalty to the same of the colonial period."
Undoubtedly Free0352 would have been the East India Company's biggest supporter. Coddled by the British Crown, and supported with the Tea Act to turn the fortunes of the then struggling company's finances around, Free0352 wouldn't have been masquerading as a native American and throwing the East India Company's cargo into the Boston Harbor. He would have been throwing the masquerading protestors into the water, instead, while labeling them terrorists.
Dave,
Drug decriminalization is on Rand Paul's list, as is judicial reform. Two reasons why I support his candidacy for President.
As for immigration reform, provided there are protections from not importing thousands of foreign welfare cases, I'm essentially for open borders.
As for defense spending, I've long argued the US should pull its forces out of Korea entirely. I long argued to remove them from Europe as well, however with the rise of the new cold war with Russia I'm rethinking that. The fight is in the middle east, which is south west Asia. That is where our military should be focused. As for defense expenditure, there is a lot of glutinous and wasteful pork spending in the defense budget, spending that is choking the necessary functions of the military. Our fight in the Middle East requires a large and professional land force.
The only threat to the Constitution comes from the left. It has the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments under assault. I'd like to defeat those efforts.
As for your position that I'd have supported King George, let me remind you I'm the only person in this conversation that has actually fought two totalitarian regimes. The Taliban and Hussein's Baathist government. That's not counting Al'Qaeda's proxy government in Al'Anbar and Iran's in Sadr City.
Where were you when the call to fight tyranny was sounded? Oh yes, protesting our fighting of it.
Drug decriminalization is on Rand Paul's list. Sure it is. Where’s the legislation? His Party, and the corpo-Dems want none of that.
The only threat to the Constitution comes from the left. It has the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments under assault. I'd like to defeat those efforts.
It must be nice to have a short memory, or is it just the Right wing mental filter?
Where were you when the call to fight tyranny was sounded?
Following my conscience and protesting the tyranny and treason of war of aggression based on lies. Just as I protested the Patriot Act, FISA Amendment and other acts of tyranny from… get this, the Right.
By joining Bush on these assaults on our rights, and granting corporate immunity, Obama has shown beyond doubt that he is NOT of the Left.
I’m happy to see you have SOME civil libertarian inclinations. There we agree.
Where’s the legislation?
He's one Senator Dave. He doesn't have a magic wand to wave. I'm sure he can advance that cause much better as POTUS than he can as the Honorable Gentleman from Kentucky.
It must be nice to have a short memory, or is it just the Right wing mental filter?
Oh I haven't forgotten the role the GOP played in the Patriot Act, and I recall warning them at the time. The reality is Rand Paul has lead the charge against it, even working with Democrats who are right on that issue. If that is important to you, why not support that? Oh yes, you're an extremist who can't look beyond your ideologically driven mania because Paul isn't a welfare stater. Your purity test is a sign of your extremism. You have no ability to compromise Dave, and I do.
Free0352: "...let me remind you I'm the only person in this conversation that has actually fought two totalitarian regimes. The Taliban and Hussein's Baathist government."
Both of which were of no threat to the United States, or of the interests to the vast preponderance of Americans.
"Where were you when the call to fight tyranny was sounded? Oh yes, protesting our fighting of it."
I think Dave's response was perfect.
Oh, and by the way, I'm sure the local war-dealer (military recruiter) wouldn't have been interested in any misguided call to duty I may have entertained. But your statement is true regarding another war fought only for the promotion and profitability of multinational corporate interests -- at the expense of over 58,000 young people who were also duped. I protested that war also -- long before you were even a glint in your wayward father's eye.
I will mention, however, and I hope you'll agree, that the people of Iraq were better off prior to 2003 (the year the U.S. attacked Iraq under false pretenses) then they are today. Let me remind you that you helped create the hell that these people have to endure each and every day. For this reason, which stems from your willingness to act in alliance with the Empire, I have no respect for you. You have no remorse for what you did, and instead are perversely proud of it.
This is why you're a tool.
The only threat to the Constitution comes from the left.
"Oh I haven't forgotten the role the GOP played in the Patriot Act"... must be the "Left", huh?
You have no ability to compromise Dave, and I do.
Yeah, first we hear about the Left pushing the Patriot Act and FISA and then the GOP eagerness for compromise.
We're seeing a lot of this projection from the Right lately.
Hogwash, of course.
Both of which were of no threat to the United States, or of the interests to the vast preponderance of Americans.
Unarguably totalitarian regimes even if you don't recognize the innate danger of contemporary totalitarianism worldwide, so if you folks were so eager to fight tyranny - where were you?
I protested that war also -- long before you were even a glint in your wayward father's eye.
There was plenty of totalitarianism in the 1960s and 1970s, which totalitarians of that era did you fight?
Oh wait, your idea of fighting is protesting a government that is constitutionally prohibited from bothering you in that regard. How courageous of you. I'm sure you'd have protested King George as well... fat lot of good that would have done. Real totalitarians don't let you protest anything. They kill you wholesale. I'm afraid Jeff, you're just a legend in your own mind.
I'm the only person in this conversation with the balls to pick up a rifle and actually put my life on the line for what I believe. Lets be realistic about that Jeff. If this were 1775, I'd be out in the line with a rifle, and you'd be what? Probably protesting John Handcock and George Washington for being "In the 1%"
Free0352: "Unarguably totalitarian regimes even if you don't recognize the innate danger of contemporary totalitarianism worldwide, so if you folks were so eager to fight tyranny - where were you?"
The even bigger question is why aren't you fighting the totalitarianism that has engulfed your own country. Your refusal to see the takeover of our country by interests intent on taking away our democratic processes is frightening.
The epicenter of this "innate danger of contemporary totalitarianism", as you put it, is right here! Open your eyes!
"There was plenty of totalitarianism in the 1960s and 1970s, which totalitarians of that era did you fight?"
The totalitarianism of the military-industrial complex -- the same destroyer of this country's treasure and young lives that intelligent people with perspective are fighting today. Of course, the battlefield is littered with half-wits such as yourself.
"I'm sure you'd have protested King George as well..."
Exactly! I would have been on the EIC ships in Boston Harbor, in December of 1773, throwing over the tea. I'm sure you would have condemned my acts and viewed them as destruction of corporate property.
"Real totalitarians don't let you protest anything. They kill you wholesale."
You're right, they don't!...but they don't have to literally kill you to be just as effective. Just as it's no longer necessary to assassinate those who get in the way, they only have to shape and control the official narrative. We've seen this happen more and more in recent years.
The squelching of Occupy Wall Street is the most prime example. Others are corrals built as "designated protest zones" at political conventions, or on an individual level, the removal of people from events even when they have a ticket. The list is endless.
"I'm the only person in this conversation with the balls to pick up a rifle and actually put my life on the line for what I believe."
Well, you have the whole military-industrial complex behind you, supported by billions (trillions?) of (wasted) dollars. When you're protesting against the powers that be these days, you're on your own. It's only you and your convictions. This takes a lot more courage. Subsequently, I know of women who have risked just as much, for far less in return, who have giant balls compared to you. They're true leaders. You only follow.
That's why you're a tool.
I almost forgot about the corporatism angle here. Did any of you happen to catch Fox News this weekend? I think it was Sunday morning, some of the pundits had a good discussion about corporatism. Maybe you can find it on their web site, I think it was on Neil Cavuto's show.
Thanks, F&B.
All I could find with a quite search was a pulled video about "CAVUTO – WALMART WELFARE, CORPORATISM AT IT’S FINEST 3.25.14"
Corporatism is a rare word indeed in corporate media.
Free0352: "Just because you believe in a wild conspiracy theory doesn't mean I share it."
Like your wild conspiracy idea that ISIS (or ISIL, or IS or whatever they call it these days) is going to attack our shores?
"I've seen real totalitarianism, there is none here in American. Zero, none."
No, not in the same way. It's inverted -- but totalitarianism just the same. (I've explained this to you before. You seem to have comprehensive challenges.)
"I would have [condemned your acts and viewed them as destruction of corporate property], as many of our founding fathers did at the time."
Yes, several did -- and as you mentioned, "at the time". But later they understood the necessity of the act and the reasoning behind it.
That's something you've never been able to grasp.
"Right now people in Ferguson, MO are throwing all manner of crap not to mention insults at police officers, burning cars and buildings to the ground. Body count from that? Zero."
It's been a high-profile event from the onset, thanks to the continuous protesting since day-one. The Ferguson cops are stupid, but they're not that stupid. They can't afford to kill another innocent.
"You have no idea. No idea what oppression looks like."
I apparently have a better idea what building oppression looks like than you do. You're so blind you can't see it.
"You were lucky to be born here..."
Maybe...maybe not. We'll see how the Republic stands up to fascist extremists such as yourself over the next ten years or so.
"...because only people born in Western countries have the luxury of being so stupid."
People are just starting to wake up to the totalitarianism of the corporate-state. Like I said, we'll see what happens over the course of the next ten years.
I've seen real totalitarianism, there is none here in American. Zero, none.
Tell that to the guys locked up for cannabis. Tell that to the person fired for politically incorrect urine that is not regarded as a "personal effect" free from corporate/government search. Tell that to everyone whose phone and internet records are swept into the NSA's "permanent record". Tell that to the majority of Americans NOT represented by the bought and paid for corporate lackey congress. Tell that to the Ferguson police department and their open season on "demonic hulks", aka unarmed blacks. Tell that to unknown numbers of people tortured by US military and intelligence and proxies. Tell that to the countless people incarcerated without charges or evidence in occupied lands and Gitmo. Tell that to those executed by drones without trial.
Tell that to the guys locked up for cannabis.
Really Dave? You're going to compare a North Korean death camp to getting locked up for dealing pot? I agree its a stupid law, but it isn't a gulag. You do realize that when you make this idiotic equivalency, its destroys your credibility right? No America isn't perfect, it also isn't Communist China or Burma either. Get real. It wasn't your opposition to the Iraq war that caused people to call you anti-American, it was your saying things like you and Jeff's posts above. You can't equivocate America with a totalitarian country, and to try to do so is despicable. But that's typical of you. Just once try to have an honest conversation and not demonize what in reality is one of the freest places on Earth- even with its flaws.
Free0352: "No America isn't perfect, it also isn't Communist China or Burma either."
As Dave Dubya already explained, nobody here ever made such a claim. Please refresh my memory if I ever have written that this was the case. (Of course, your evidence of such a claim should include post, and date and time-stamp. Can you provide this?)
"It wasn't your opposition to the Iraq war that caused people to call you anti-American, it was your saying things like you and Jeff's posts above."
I believe you're the only one who has labeled Dave Dubya and me "anti-American". Nobody else has, that I can recall. Only you.
"You can't equivocate America with a totalitarian country, and to try to do so is despicable."
I've already explained that it's a different type of totalitarianism. Do a little research on "inverted-totalitarianism". You might learn something. (In retrospect, you probably wouldn't. I don't believe you're intelligent enough to grasp the concepts.)
"Just once try to have an honest conversation and not demonize what in reality is one of the freest places on Earth- even with its flaws."
Do you mean like how you always demonize the federal government?...unless we're talking about the military, that is.
JG,
I don't think Free cares to learn what inverted totalitarianism, as with everything else not withing the bounds of his prejudice and preconceptions, really is.
His is primarily, and fundamentally, a belief system.
He scorns, and fears, those who question his "free market" god and its merciless inhumane weapon that is unregulated capitalism.
Greed and war are the solutions to every problem.
It's a comfort to the true believers, and a horror to its victims. And no, he cannot comprehend the fact his fallen comrades and their families are also the victims.
They died, and now ISIS can have their way.
It sure is great al-Qaeda's "ally" Saddam is gone. And we can sleep soundly in the comfort that no nukular aluminum tubes will be used to destroy America.
You're wrong again Dave. Firstly, you're suggesting I think government has zero role to play in regulation of the economy. That isn't true. What I do believe, is in a moderate approach to that regulation - while you hold a radical and extremist view where the iron fist of government oversees every transaction.
Second, inverted means turned upside down. Therefore, inverted totalitarianism is totalitarianism turned on its head, or its opposite if you will if you see totalitarianism as a spectrum - as most people do.
Exhibit A.
"He scorns, and fears, those who question his "free market" god and its merciless inhumane weapon that is unregulated capitalism."
...the iron fist of government oversees every transaction...
Exhibit B.
"I don't think Free cares to learn what inverted totalitarianism... really is."
...Second, inverted means turned upside down. Therefore, inverted totalitarianism is totalitarianism turned on its head, or its opposite...
Thanks.
You can't counter my argument about you Dave.
Name one sector of the economy that shouldn't be regulated by government.
Free0352: "...inverted means turned upside down. Therefore, inverted totalitarianism is totalitarianism turned on its head, or its opposite if you will if you see totalitarianism as a spectrum - as most people do."
Google it, and maybe you'll have a clue. I know it's tough for you to learn new things, but give it a try. You just may learn something.
Free0352: "What I do believe, is in a moderate approach to that regulation..."
Well, how about that! Doing a complete about-face!
Define "moderate".
"...while you hold a radical and extremist view where the iron fist of government oversees every transaction."
Exaggerating again! Neither Dave Dubya nor I have proposed such nonsense.
Your back-paddling is very obvious. Trying to come across as the compromising moderate, after years of spouting anarchic and militaristic viewpoints, is truly disingenuous. You can't pull it off. We know you too well.
I'm curious -- to what depth of deception and brazen untruthfulness will you allow yourself to succumb?
Neither Dave Dubya nor I have proposed such nonsense.
Then if should be easy for you to name several sectors of the economy the federal government shouldn't regulate. I bet you can't name one!
And as for back peddling, you had to use an invented (by some moron) word to back pedal from equivocating the United States and North Korea.
BTW its when socialists say things like that... that's why you lose elections, not corporate advertising. You could advertise this post with a trillion dollars and Americans would still find those that held your viewpoints despicable and wouldn't vote for it.
Free0352: "Then if [sic] should be easy for you to name several sectors of the economy the federal government shouldn't regulate."
Lemonade stands and the underground economy. There! I named two! ;-)
Unfortunately, the federal government has chosen to "regulate" the total economic system through its constitutionally lawless scheme of equating legal fictions (i.e., corporations) with human beings. Until this miscarriage of justice is reversed, corporate dominance of our constitutional and democratic rights are nullified.
"...you had to use an invented (by some moron) word to back pedal from equivocating the United States and North Korea."
It's more likely you're the moron, since you're unable to distinguish and appreciate the three main ways in which inverted totalitarianism is the inverted form of classical totalitarianism -- such as the type used in North Korea.
But, as I've mentioned before, I've come to expect this inability from you. Your incapability tells me you've succumbed to the dictates of a managed democracy. It's so you!
Hence...you're a tool.
haha, I think dave gave up.
I hear ya.
For all practical purposes, we may as well give up on the myth of a democratic representative republic of, by, and for the people...
But there's a glimmer of sanity worth noting...coming soon.
cara menghiangkan benjolan lemak.
obat batuk berdahak
obat benjolan berlemak
Post a Comment