Jackpine, political party operatives and other disinformation agents keep repeating their false talking points no matter what facts they are confronted with. That’s what they’re paid to do, disrupt blogs and distract people. Some sit in cubicles and some work from home, but they are very well paid for their efforts. Usually they pretend to be stupid like Bush to appeal to what they think are ordinary people.

They use every psychological warfare tactic in the old KUBARK manual, including smears, appeals to authority, attempting to isolate their victims, claiming that the ideas of their victims (like 90% American public opposition to the bailouts) aren’t mainstream, etc. They usually have good, folksy cover identities.

But they’re just doing their job, so they are not open to reason. They’re posting what they’re paid to post.

Thanks for the best laugh I’ve had in weeks. Oh, and when political operatives and disinfo agents are exposed for what they are, they usually bring government pressure to bear to get whoever exposes them banned from left gatekeeper websites which are also dependent upon the Democratic Party for funding.

Political party operatives and disinformation agents are a complete waste of time and bandwidth. But political parties, various think tanks, government agencies, and military psy-war departments, use them to block any attempts at genuine democratic (small “d”) advocacy in the alternative media. There used to be ads for them on Craigs List.

As you noted, they regularly falsely accuse their opponents of doing what they are actually doing.

Showing how ignorant, stupid, and completely wrong they are never deters them because they’re getting paid. In this failing economy, many were driven to it by desperation, so they have no qualms and no conscience about doing whatever they have to do to survive. That’s how fascism works. The weak will sell out their family, friends, and country for a scrap of bread tossed to them under the rich man’s table.

Louise, here are some of the Bush/Cheney bills the Democrats voted for:

Enabling Acts - For An Era Of Greed

And here are some that Obama voted for, compiled
by the Creative Youth News Team (CYNT 2007), a progressive African American advocacy organization:

“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars…Roll call 2”

“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”

“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture…[and a] man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”

“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte’s prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”

“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 [W FOR PRO-WAR VOTE]”

“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 [W].”

“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”

“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 [W].”

“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. [W].”

“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. [W]”

“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 [W].”

“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 [W].”

“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 [W].”

(continued)

“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 [W].”

“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 [W]”

“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 [W]”

“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183[W].”

“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 [W].

9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 [W]”

“9/29/06: Obama voted for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 [W].”

“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 [W].”

“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush’s policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 [W]”

“Obama’s voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 [W]...Obama’s record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”
——————————

That list only goes through 2007. In 2008 Obama (and the Democrats) again voted for everything on the Bush/Cheney agenda.

Although Obama has spoken out against torture, since he took office, the torture in Guantanamo has gotten worse because he never bothered to send anyone to oversee it. He insists on continuing the extraordinary renditions, indefinite imprisonment without trial, and torture, and has increased the defense budget and expanded the Bush/Cheney wars. He has already given more money through his bailouts to the Bush/Cheney base, the haves and have-mores like the Carlyle Group and the other big finance and military-industrial sector donors to him campaign, in his short few months as President, than Bush and Cheney managed in eight years.

mike112769, April 15 at 3:17 am #

“Louise: please wake up.”

You’re right Mike. Maybe it’s not a good idea to spend all night trying to earn a little extra income. Then instead of catching up on sleep, responding to people who apparently have nothing but time on their hands. Otherwise I wouldn’t have made the bo-bo jackpine savage, pointed out.

Obviously Pakastan should have been Palestine. But just between you and me I’ll bet jackpine knew that.

Thanking Mark E. Smith, you said, “I slightly differ with your stance on the police state in America. They aren’t strong enough to stop a concerted effort of the people, by the people and for the people. Not even the Soviets could do that.”

Thanks for that. You are correct. What’s lacking in our society is the concerted effort. Much easier to type, hold candlelight viduals and throw tea-bags.

jackpine savage,

OK, I’ll allow you are not a racist, repub operative or an anarchist, you just sound like one. However I find “because i happen to disagree with some of Obama’s actions” a bit disingenuous, because so far, you have disagreed with ALL of Obama’s actions. Which is your right, but at least have the decency to admit you just don’t like the man.

By the way jackpine, “WHERE are ALL those Cheney/Bush BILLS you claim the MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS voted for? Cant find them? No surprise. The surprise will be when you actually come with an original thought!”

Mark E. Smith, 

“ROFFLMFAO!”

I’m sorry, I don’t know that language. Hope it wasn’t anything important.

Mike, I did a poll on a “progressive” site and asked people if they would still vote if the only federally approved voting mechanism was a flush toilet. Half of them said that they would because voting is their right.

If you don’t understand the difference between a vote and a voice in government, I can’t help you.

You are being given a vote, but it is NOT a voice in government. You might as well be voting for Mickey Mouse for all the good your vote does you.

South Africa was wracked with violence for years—remember Nelson Mandela spending 27 years in prison on Robben Island? Until they had a successful election boycott, it did no good because their government claimed to be a democratically elected legitimate government. Once they stopped voting, the Apartheid regime no longer had the consent of the governed, no longer could claim to be a democratically elected legitimate regime, and it quickly fell.

The easiest way to have unnecessary bloodshed is to try to physically oppose a government that you just voted to legitimize. The only NONVIOLENT way to discredit a government is to stop voting for it.

Can you vote on how your tax money is spent? No, you can’t. You were allowed to vote for the slate of Electors of the political party to which one of only two candidates with any chance of winning the Presidency belonged, and in 2008 both of them were pro-bailout. So if you voted third party or voted for Mickey Mouse, you were still enabling a government that is not of, by, or for the people, to claim you gave your consent to be governed by whichever pro-bailout millionaire won.

Can you vote against the war? No, you can’t. You can vote for the slate of Electors of the political party to which one of only two candidates with any chance of winning belong to, and both of them are pro-war. So if you voted third party or voted for Mickey Mouse, you were still granting your consent to whoever won to claim to be the head of a democratically elected government with the consent of the governed, to wage wars in your name, whether or not you personally oppose those wars.

The reason that half the people in this country still vote is because they can’t tell the difference between a vote and a voice in government. In Venezuela the people get to vote DIRECTLY for President and the popular vote is the final say. No Electoral College, Congress, or Supreme Court can overrule the popular vote. They can also directly impeach a President. Their votes are REAL votes, not sham “votes.” They can directly elect and directly remove their own leaders. We can not.

You’ve never had a real vote and never lived in a democracy, so you are confusing a vote with a voice in government. They are not the same thing.

Louise: please wake up.

Thank you Mark E. Smith. The only real disagreement I have with you is when you say not to vote. Vote for Mickey Mouse if you want, but if we stop going to the polls, they will stop giving us a vote. I slightly differ with your stance on the police state in America. They aren’t strong enough to stop a concerted effort of the people, by the people and for the people. Not even the Soviets could do that.

ROFFLMFAO!

“As soon as he claimed his party’s nomination, Obama appeared at AIPAC.”

Yep he did. And in case you forgot, he created a bit of a ruffle in their feathers when he said Jeruselum should be the Capital, and accessable by and for ALL the people who live in Israel and Pakastan. In fact you were all so busy being outraged by his visit to that Lobby, you failed to notice his real message. That there needs to be CHANGE in Israel.
~ Louise

I’m not sure what the Pakistanis have to do with any of this or how we plan on spending Jerusalem, but that’s not what he said.

<i>Reason, mind, intelligence, thought and understanding, tells me lying and character assassination are counterproductive, and generally indicate a lack of honesty and positive production.</i? ~Louise

So then, why do you practice lying and character assassination so regularly? 

Since you (regardless of my record of comments here) decided that i must be a racist, a Republican operative or an anarchist because i happen to disagree with some of Obama’s actions, i’ll go ahead and rest my case with your argument.

Lying and character assassinations are counterproductive; they generally indicate a lack of honesty and positive production.

I’d say that sums you up pretty well.

Louise wrote, “Lifes experience has taught me, if nothing is broke, give the Republicans power and they’ll BREAK it.”

That’s funny. Because life’s experience has taught me that if something isn’t broken (GATT, free trade, banking regulations, welfare), give the Democrats power and they’ll break it, give the Republicans power and they’ll make it even worse, give power back to the Democrats and they’ll smash it to little bits and stomp on it.

Both major parties work in the interests of the rich, Louise, not in the interests of ordinary people. And the third parties aren’t any better, because no matter what they say, they’re trying to get a piece of the action and once they get it, they’ll be corrupted by it also.

Venezuela was able to bring about change by voting because they had honest elections and because they are allowed to vote directly for President and Vice-President, the popular vote is the final say (neither an Electoral College, Congress, or a Supreme Court may intervene), and because they can directly remove even a President from office by voting.

We are still children having to ask mommy and daddy (Congress) to do everything for us, because our Constitution does not allow us to do anything directly. And if we get abusive parents, there is nothing we can do to escape their abuse.

What kind of Constitution forbids people from voting directly for their own President? What kind of Constitution prohibits people from directly removing elected representatives who betray them instead of representing them? Could it be a Constitution written by slaveholders, landlords, and wealthy merchants, who wanted to ensure that the wealthy would always rule?

Three-quarters of a century and you are still looking to ancient books for guidance instead of looking at what is happening in the world now and thinking for yourself.

Louise writes, “The problem as I see it, is a lack of organized Lobbying from we the people.”

Organized or not, more than 90% of us told Congress that we opposed the bailouts. That was BEFORE the election, DURING the campaign, when candidates are supposed to be MOST attuned to what the public wants.

Obama ignored the enraged outcries of more than 90% of the American public, took the lead on pushing through the bailouts, and a lot of Democrats voted for him anyway on the theory that Republicans are worse, which is true but only part of the truth.

Once elected, since we have no way to remove him from office (only Congress can do that, and since they didn’t impeach Bush and Cheney, they’re not going to impeach Obama), he continued to ignore the will of 90% of the American people and not only expanded the bailouts, but put some of the worst criminals responsible for this economic debacle, in charge of fiscal policy for his administration.

Obama listens only to his big corporate sponsors. He asks for public input, and then ignores it.

Obama knows that if he raped and killed the people who voted for him, they’d be grateful that they hadn’t been raped and killed by a Republican. Not that the Republicans aren’t worse—they certainly are. When they rape and kill, they smirk and taunt. When Democrats do it, they smile and apologize.

But for the innocent women being raped and babies being killed in Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan (not to mention within our own military by their own male peers), the result is the same.

No individual or group can get more organized than having more than 90% of the American public angrily and vocally oppose something as we did the bailouts. That’s as organized as you’re ever going to get. But Obama knew that no matter how much they opposed what he was doing, a lot of fools would still support him. And he was right.

I’m sick and tired of your bailouts, Louise. I’m sick and tired of your wars, Louise. You voted for them, so they’re yours. Not just Obama’s, yours.

I consider everyone who opposed the bailouts but voted in an election where only a pro-bailout candidate had any chance of winning, to be so fiscally irresponsible that they should have guardians appointed, Louise, and so immoral that they should be in the Hague standing trial for war crimes with the war criminals they granted legitimacy to by voting. When I oppose something, I don’t vote for it. When you oppose something, you vote for it. That makes you a danger to yourself and others.

When the only possible outcome of an election is policies that you oppose, sane people don’t vote.

Crazy people, on the other hand, look at candidates who totally ignored an enraged 90% of the public and claim that we’re not organized enough. When 90% of us oppose something, that IS an organized outcry.

Your Democrats won, Louise. The ones who had voted for the Bush/Cheney agenda, protected Bush and Cheney from impeachment, and are now continuing and expanding the Bush/Cheney agenda. Your good cops won, and while they are definitely nicer than the bad cops, they are still pigs, have the same boss, are on the same team, and mean you no good. They just have different techniques for getting you to submit.

‘08 wasn’t an election, it was a seduction.

jackpine savage,

“What i am not is Manichean.  I realize that it’s difficult, Louise, to think in terms that aren’t simple and that it’s even easier to attempt to end an argument by calling someone a racist.  How else could anyone not love and adore Emperor Obama?”

~~~

Oh my gosh, by your own words you define yourself!
You are correct, you are not Manichaean.

Manichaean ways of thinking are wrongly credited with influencing the development of some of (Saint) Augustine’s ideas. The early “Christian” leader framed the concepts of original sin and just war, dividing people into good and evil belonging in heaven or hell. He segregated people into groups of elect, hearers, and sinners. And established hostility to the flesh and sexual activity. That narrow view has kept discrimination, persecution and prejudice alive and well all these many centuries.

Some prefer to focus on the negative, (oh so Christianist) which leads to more negative thinking and an endless search for fault, and someone to blame for the fault. That behaviour has worked well to hold people down ever since Augustine clearly difined discrimination, persecution and prejudice.

I prefer (at least I try) to focus on “Reason, Mind, Intelligence, Thought and Understanding,” the five Shekhinas as outlined in original Manichaean Mythos.

The popular habit of lableing Bush as Manichaean, clearly underlines how few people have “Reason, Mind, Intelligence, Thought and Understanding,” else they’d realize lableing Bush as Manichaean is beyond stupid!

Reason, mind, intelligence, thought and understanding, tells me lying and character assassination are counterproductive, and generally indicate a lack of honesty and positive production. I dislike repub leadership in general because I dislike deliberate lying and character assassination. Life is too short to waste it on hate.

In each of us there is the capacity to think. And the capacity to make mistakes, and likewise correct our mistake and get things right. In each of us there is a bit of common sense. Common sense can open up windows which lead to observations which lead to recognition. And sometimes recognition can lead to positive action. But sometimes it only leads to shutting the window and focusing on whatever one finds uncomfortable in their own little world. At the same time needing to blame someone else for their discomfort. In your case, “Emperor Obama”.

Your plan to stop Bushes wars, (that you wrongly blame Obama for) is not a plan. Simply a suggestion. I have a loved one stationed in Iraq just now, so I’d like to see Bushes Blunder in Iraq stopped too. But sometimes it’s not so easy cleaning up eight years of FUBAR (and that’s just what it is, and has been since Bush and Rummy first created it ... ask my loved one.) FUBAR deliberately created and deliberately left unattended. Another typical that difines republican leadership.

Lifes experience has taught me, if nothing is broke, give the Republicans power and they’ll BREAK it.

Attack as opposed to fix is the repub leadership way, so it’s only natural to assume, behavior that looks like typical repub behavior may be typical repub behavior. They don’t put forth solutions either. Perhaps that’s simply because to do so would mean to admit they created a problem. Or maybe they simply don’t know how. I’m inclined to believe they don’t know how. Followed closely by they don’t care.

But then what do I know? I’ve only been around for three quarters of a century.

Mark E. Smith,

For people who claim to want to see change, you sound an awful lot like the republicans who daily fault Obama. They make stuff up too. And they rarely give a thought to any damage it might do, which leads to the obvious conclusion ...
doing damage must be the goal!

If in fact you actually wanted change, you would be working to that end. Rather than simply posting the same idiocy, the disorganised and disengenuious repubs post on their sites, blabber from their TV and radio programs, and wail from the halls of Congress. You really don’t need to help them out. Mainstreammedia does a fine job without your help. Regardless of former or present party affiliations. Membership in or lack of membership. Active involvement or simple inaction, whether you like it or not, your motive alludes, and closely aligns you with the Party of NO!

I was pretty pissed about the 2000 election too. But I chose not to blame the victim. Blaming the victim is the republican way! Your jaded perception of VP Gore, paints with a very different brush the reality of a history I also viewed. Which suggests you have always been a fault-finder. Too bad, because the bitching and moaning actually contributes just enough confusion and disinformation to prevent honest action by those willing to work toward change. You are not about change. You are about grudges and anger and bitching and moaning. 

By the way, WHERE are ALL those Cheney/Bush BILLS you claim the MAJORITY of DEMOCRATS voted for? Cant find them? No surprise. The surprise will be when you actually come with an original thought!

And that means you have to move beyond your anger.

felicity,

“Dems are no less guilty than Repubs of putting the health of their political careers first and their obligation to represent what is best for their constituents second, third, fourth…”

~~~

On that I couldn’t agree more. However there are dems who have consistently tried to change the equassion. Like the few, very few repubs who have honestly tried to represent in a fair and equitable way. The problem as I see it, is a lack of organized Lobbying from we the people. We prefer to “let George do it” and he did.

“Seriously, what is change we can believe in? There certainly is no shortage of folks who tell us every day, in every way (ad-nauseum) we don’t have it, but they don’t tell us what it is.”

And nothing changes. The same angry people complain. The same liars keep lying. The same dumbbells get manipulated and the same Corporations continue to plunder us all. Witness today’s tea-parties. Following Corporate medias instructions they protest. What do they protest, their income tax reduction?

psickmind fraud,

“As soon as he claimed his party’s nomination, Obama appeared at AIPAC.”

~~~

Yep he did. And in case you forgot, he created a bit of a ruffle in their feathers when he said Jeruselum should be the Capital, and accessable by and for ALL the people who live in Israel and Pakastan. In fact you were all so busy being outraged by his visit to that Lobby, you failed to notice his real message. That there needs to be CHANGE in Israel.

~~~

“I’d like to see Obama tell the Senate appropriations committee no more giving Israel 10% of their budget every year (Israel is one of the 40 richest countries in the world, and top eight arms producer, why do they need our money?).”

~~~

Israel is in much the same mess as us. They are fiscally irresponsible (seems most conservative governments are) operate on a budget deficite, are hopelessly in debt and spend a disproportunate amount of their money on their military. Perhaps we need to recognize their habit of following our example may bankrupt them. Wonder who will collapse first, us or them?

Does that justify our sending them money every year? No. Right now, they should be sending US money ... we need it worse! Does the amount we send them enable them to maintain control, or totally fund their aggression? No. We do not send them 10% of their budget!

Israel’s 2008 budget was projected to be $76 billion, based on an expected economic growth rate of 4.2 percent with a budget deficit of 1.6 percent of gross domestic product. In 2008 we sent Israel almost $2.5 million. Do the math.

Our current estimate of cumulative total direct aid to Israel is $113.8554 billion. That cumulative total runs from 1949 through 2008. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/114bill.html

About 70% of Israel’s external debt is sourced from US loan guarantees or State of Israel Bonds at favorable costs of funding. State of Israel Bonds are sold mainly to Jewish communities outside of Israel. Now that’s a good joke. Israel functions on borrowed money in the form of US loan guarantees and the US loan guarantees function on borrowed money. So Jewish communities here buy Israeli Bonds backed by US loan guarantees backed by borrowed money. No wonder everybody worries about China!

The current Israeli campaign to make Israel an attractive tourist destination tells me they are desparate for additional income. As to Israel being one of the 40 richest countries in the world, that reminds me of our own constant repeat of being the richest nation in the world. Do you ever wonder what they/we base their/our claims on? I do.

There are five branches of service in the Armed Forces. The Army, the Marine Corps, the Navy, the Air Force and the Coast Guard.

All branches are part of the uniformed services of the United States and are under civilian control with the President of the United States serving as Commander-in-chief, per the United States Constitution. All except the Coast Guard are part of the Department of Defense, which is under the authority of the Secretary of Defense, also a civilian. The Coast Guard falls under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, but during wartime, the Coast Guard is placed under the Department of Defense through the Department of the Navy

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.

Base closure is a function of Congress. Proposed closures are coming up this year. Also remember an installation is not necessarily a base, and visa-versa. Several bases have been closed in the last few years. Others have been down-sized, while some have been expanded. My suggestion is you acquaint yourself with the bases, their locations and principle use. Then you can Lobby the up-coming congressional hearings.

Identifying problems, without the ability or effort to contribute to solutions means you must be racially prejudiced, a republican operative, or an anarchist.

What i am not is Manichean.  I realize that it’s difficult, Louise, to think in terms that aren’t simple and that it’s even easier to attempt to end an argument by calling someone a racist.  How else could anyone not love and adore Emperor Obama?

Let’s put it this way, i’m old enough to see the world as it really is.  What i want from you is some sort of proof that the Democratic Party is all that you crack it up to be…not broad strokes about how evil the Republican Party is (no objection on that from me) and so the Democratic Party must, by definition, be good.

And i’ve got a plan.  Emperor Obama ought to stop his wars of Imperial conquest carried over from his predecessor…you know the ones he voted in favor of funding.  He ought to work for the people who voted for him rather than the people who funded his campaign.

My plan doesn’t include listening to Democratic brown-shirts like you, because you sound exactly like the Bush bots with your over-simplified world-view and stand behind the emperor no matter what attitude.

BTW, i’ve seen a fair portion of this world; enough to witness what we do outside our borders…callousness perpetrated by Dems and Reps alike and that concerns me far more than anything that happens in this third-world shit-hole pretending to be the leader of the planet.

Louise wrote: “So in your mind, Obama needs to be labled and villafied so you can have the satisfaction of seeing your greedy, dishonest and thoroughly incompetent Republicans regain control.”

Just for your information, Louise, I’m sixty-nine years old. I was a lifelong Democrat until I learned that Al Gore had personally ordered the Senate Democrats NOT to sign the Congressional Black Caucus petition to reject the fraudulent Florida Electoral votes in 2000, because I had watched him on C-Span smirking at a tearful Congressional Black Caucus as he taunted them about not being able to get a single Senator’s signature.

Then I because a Green, until I realized that it is impossible to reform the system from within. It is like trying to fight organized crime by joining the Mafia.

I am not not and have never been a Republican. Unlike the majority of Congressional Democrats, I have never voted for or supported any item on the Republican agenda.

Psickmind is correct. Neither party represents mainstream Americans, 90% of whom oppose the bailouts and a majority of whom are against the wars of aggression based on lies (crimes against humanity).

Felicity is also right in saying, “Dems are no less guilty than Repubs of putting the health of their political careers first and their obligation to represent what is best for their constituents second, third, fourth…”

In fact, because we have no way to directly remove them from Congress for failing to represent the will of the majority of their constituents, we have no way to hold them accountable at all.

Without accountability, we do not have a democracy, we have a tyranny. Imagine if you had a business, an employee stole money from you, and you were told that you could not fire that employee for two more years and during that time you had to allow them to keep stealing from you. Who would be in control then, you or the thief you had had the misfortune to hire?

Louise writes, “It takes a while to tear down a house. Especially if you have to live in it while you tear it down. Once it’s down we can rebuild.”

If the Democrats were tearing down the house that they and the Republicans built together, the house of lies, the house of corporate welfare, the house of favoritism for the rich, the house of illegal wiretapping, the house of wars and bailouts, we’d be happy to give them all the time they wanted. But they are not tearing it down. They are continuing every single item on the Bush/Cheney agenda, just as they did during the Bush/Cheney years. Even worse, they have expanded the bailouts and increased the defense budget. Obama has done more fiscal harm to our economy with his bailouts during his short term in office so far, than Bush/Cheney did in eight years.

As psick wrote, “Obama puts Geithner and Summers in charge, leaves Bernanke at the Fed.  They take the $700 billion authorized by Congress and leverage it into $4 trillion.”

You really think they’re tearing down the Republican agenda? They’re doing even more harm than the Republicans did. And you’re supporting them.

Louise, two more change elements I’d like to see.  As soon as he claimed his party’s nomination, Obama appeared at AIPAC.  I’d like to see Obama tell the Senate appropriations committee no more giving Israel 10% of their budget every year (Israel is one of the 40 richest countries in the world, and top eight arms producer, why do they need our money?).
The second change would be to stop the flow of dollars out of this country by closing some of the more than 700 military bases in more than 130 countries, that would be a boon to our economy to keep that money in country. 
Why won’t Obama do either of these things?  My guess would be political contributions from AIPAC et al and from defense contractors. 

Obama’s book title “The audacity of hope” was a cruel joke on the American voters. 
Now excuse me while I go fuel the torches and sharpen the tines.

Louise - I don’t necessarily stand with Mark, but Dems are at least guilty of being gutless or at least valuing their (Senate) seats more than what’s good for their country.

In 2006 Sen Feingold introduced a resolution to censure Bush for illegal wire-taps.  His fellow Dems treated him like a leper, not because Bush hadn’t earned the censure but because his fellow Dems thought the censure would not go down well at home and thus would jeopardize their political futures.

And then there’s Pelosi and her infamous ‘impeachment off the table’ edict. 

Dems are no less guilty than Repubs of putting the health of their political careers first and their obligation to represent what is best for their constituents second, third, fourth…

Louise, how about if change we can believe in starts with putting people other than weasels in the cabinet?  People who abide by the laws by which the rest of us are expected to abide.  There’s a painful joke going around now….“remember, your income taxes are due by midnight Wednesday unless you’re a member of Obama’s cabinet”. 

The Congressional panel charged with assessing Geithner’s plan came to the conclusion that the $700 billion approved by Congress had been leveraged into $4 trillion, I didn’t do that, but seeing what’s happened I understand that it IS the case.  So how is leveraging the approved money into almost 6 times that amount “different things”?  (By the way, having one fact leading into another fact to prove something is a basic part of logic, you should learn something about it, maybe take a class)

If there’s ever been a gullible person on this site, it’s you.  You buy the Democrat’s lines, you think they’re better than the Republicans, when there’s no proof.  They vote to fund the wars, a Demo prez signed Gramm’s bills allowing banks to sell financial instruments, they give money to the thieves that fleeced the economy despite all reputable economists saying “this isn’t going to work”.  Obama took over $22 million from financial companies in his presidential campaign. 

All this crap about Republicans and Democrats is a waste of time, neither represent mainstream Americans.  If you are too blind to see that, be happy with what you get.

Mark E. Smith,

“Louise, nobody is saying the Dems sat on their hands.”

Sorry Mark, that is EXACTLY what you said.

“show me one bill from the Bush/Cheney years that the Republicans passed without a lot (usually a majority) of Democratic votes.”

No Mark, YOU SHOW ME ALL THOSE BILLS you claim were passed with a majority of Democrat votes! Cant do it, because you made that up too!

“they’re PUSHING THROUGH the bailouts the same way they’re expanding Obama’s wars and continuing every aspect of the Bush/Cheney agenda that they, the Democrats, have voted for and supported all these years.”

Not quite Mark. It takes a while to tear down a house. Especially if you have to live in it while you tear it down. Once it’s down we can rebuild. And that is exactly what scares you isn’t it. You are terrified they might actually be able to pull it off! So in your mind, Obama needs to be labled and villafied so you can have the satisfaction of seeing your greedy, dishonest and thoroughly incompetent Republicans regain control.

As any THINKING person knows, the bailout, the war, the debt, the collapsed economy and the fraud allowed by REPUBLICAN deregulation and REPUBLICAN control, led to the creation of this mess! There are stupid Democrats who always go along to get along. But is that because they support all things bad or simply because in order to get re-elected thay have to support the wishes of their uninformed and slightly stupid constituents?

Oh geez! Maybe that’s why President Obama has tried to work with the Republicans. ‘Course he knows by now that’s almost impossible, because getting good things done requires acknowledging bad things have been done. And that pack of rats called the Party of NO, can’t bring themselves to face responsibility for their BAD actions. And apparently neither can their supporters, or you.

psickmind fraud,

This all began when I asked the fault-finders to offer an honest plan defining what they believe is “change we can believe in.” Of course I never really believed anyone would, (or could) because “change we can believe in” is not anything fault-finders are interested in. If anything they seem more interested in making any effort at recovery fail. I suppose hoping that will put the corrupt party of the Right back in power.

~~~

“So, Obama puts Geithner and Summers in charge, leaves Bernanke at the Fed.  They take the $700 billion authorized by Congress and leverage it into $4 trillion”

~~~

I love the way you all manage to rollover one fact into another fact leaving the impression that they are all the same thing. When in fact they are all quite different things. Another tool the Republicans use to mislead the gullible and the uninformed.

So which is it? Are you gullible and uninformed, or republican? Or are you simply a fault-finder hell bent on seeing anarchy overtake the nation?

Actually, gullible, uninformed, and republican are kinda all one in the same, aren’t they?

And anarchy fits hand in glove with the Party of NO, cause lack of order and leadership is kinda what anarchists fight for, isn’t it?

Louise writes, “The Democrats put up a fight on every non-funded pie in the sky Bill the repubs put out there! You have stated all the bad stuff happened only because the dems sat on their hands.”

Louise, nobody is saying the Dems sat on their hands. They raised their hands and voted FOR everything the Republicans wanted. The wars, the Patriot Acts, illegal wiretapping, torture, the bailouts—none of it could have happened without Democratic votes in Congress.

Now that the Democrats control Congress, they often have to pass bills without a single Republican vote. But show me one bill from the Bush/Cheney years that the Republicans passed without a lot (usually a majority) of Democratic votes. The Congressional Democrats didn’t sit on their hands, they actively voted for everything Bush and Cheney wanted, and then, because they were on record as collaborating in crimes against humanity, took impeachment off the table and are still protecting Bush and Cheney from investigation and prosecution.

You’re confusing what the Democrats said with how they voted. They SAID they opposed the Republican agenda, but in every instance (with a few notable exceptions like Kucinich) they voted FOR IT.

The Democrats could have had a much larger control of Congress in ‘06, but in at least six stolen Congressional elections where the Democratic candidates got the most votes and the Republican candidates fraudulently stole the elections, the Democratic Congress refused to investigate, dismissed the Federal Election Contests filed by Democrats, and swore in the Republicans immediately because they needed more Republican votes to keep the wars going and keep impeachment off the table.

Now, however, with a Democratic majority, many Republicans, and 90% of the American people opposed to the bailouts, the Democrats could stop the theft immediately. But again, they’re not sitting on their hands, they’re PUSHING THROUGH the bailouts the same way they’re expanding Obama’s wars and continuing every aspect of the Bush/Cheney agenda that they, the Democrats, have voted for and supported all these years.

If they’d at least have the decency to sit on their hands, and the courage not to vote for what they claim to oppose, the wars of aggression based on lies would be over and the bailouts would be history. You’re listening to what they say, Louise, not looking at their voting records and what they did and are still doing.

Apparently, Louise, “change we can believe in” involves a revolving door for the weasels guarding the henhouse, where as they go out they get to take their place supping at the taxpayers’ trough.  Are you familiar with the Congressional panels’ report assessing Geithner’s plan?  If not, you can find out about it here http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney04102009.html

So, Obama puts Geithner and Summers in charge, leaves Bernanke at the Fed.  They take the $700 billion authorized by Congress and leverage it into $4 trillion, then Geithner says Treasury will assume the debt when the economy recovers.  My question then, Louise, is “is Obama complicit in fleecing us, or is he just totally clueless?”  Because with the moves he’s made with his cabinet and the economy, it’s gotta be one or the other.  Personally, I don’t think he’s clueless.

Correction to previous post:

For eight years, the REPUBLICANS controlled the SENATE and the White House, for thirteen the Congress! The Democrats put up a fight on every non-funded pie in the sky Bill the repubs put out there! You have stated all the bad stuff happened only because the dems sat on their hands. By that absurdity you clearly prove you are either IGNORANT of reality, or are deliberately twisting reality to your own agenda!

Mark E. Smith,

“The “losses in state revenues” are due to Obama’s cuts in funding to the states, due to HIS wars, which he voted to fund back when he was a Democratic Party Senator and they were still Bush/Cheney wars.”

You made that up to!

Is that a gift you were born with, or did you have to attend the Karl Rove College of Lie Perfection to master that behavior?

Obama did not cut funding to the States, has NEVER cut funding to the States. Your lack of knowledge on how State government works is stunning! If in fact the President of the United States had the power to fund, and defund States, this would not be a Constitutional government. Learn something of value!

Loss of State revenue is partially due to loss of dollar value, loss of jobs and loss of leadership with vision. But primarily because of the collapse of the dollar versus increasing demands from REPUBLICANS to cut taxes. They are simply to STUPID to understand when you start a war, you have to pay for it. Obama wasn’t even in Washington DC when the dim-bulb repubs you love so much made this brainless decision!

The artical you cite is from a Canadian source. What’s the matter, can’t you back up your lies with anything home-grown?

The wars, as you very well know belong to BUSH, who even admited he had lost interest in them and would let the next president fix the mess he made. For eight years, the REPUBLICANS controlled the House and the White House, for thirteen the Congress! The Democrats put up a fight on every non-funded pie in the sky Bill the repubs put out there! You have stated all the bad stuff happened only because the dems sat on their hands. By that absurdity you clearly prove you are either IGNORANT of reality, or are deliberately twisting reality to your own agenda! Why are you doing that? Are you a commited (possibly paid) republican opperative?

Or can you not understand any of that, because you cant remember much beyond the last few months. So typical of so-called conservatives. That is after all why Republican leaders love folks like you. They know they can do anything to you, say anything to you, dump as much shit on you as possible and you’ll accept it! Then, like so many obedient pre-programed drones, repeat their lies!

We are in a mess, we are watching the mess hover in nuetral. What do you want? A rapid transition into high, so the whole thing will collapse faster? You have no shortage of hate, but I still wait for one, just one single word from you that offers an alternative and POSITIVE approach. I know that’s tough when all you really want to do is slash and burn. Being on the losing side sucks, huh?

jackpine savage,

“In any case where I live, folks are smart enough to understand, no matter how easy it may be, we can’t blame Obama for our shortfalls! And we dont! And, we are even smart enough to have begun replacing a few of those old hanger-on-er repubs with some roll up your sleaves and get to work dems.”

That’s right, and I stand behind it! In fact, “roll up your sleaves and get to work” defines president Obama. That just fries your gizzards doesn’t it? Of course I don’t know how old you are. Perhaps you have never seen that statement put into practice. Perhaps you actually think that’s what Bush did! Perhaps you think sitting here day after day typing your endless stream of negative hate is rolling up your sleeves and getting to work. Or perhaps you are just one of many (unforetunately) who functions on a deep-seated prejudice.

There are few, if any who truly have the stamina and the guts to take on the mess that 13 years of Republican Congressional control and eight years of Republican White House dictatorship have left us with. I’m quite sure you are not one of them!

All Democrats and all Republicans who function as politicians, function as politicians. That Republican political policy and leadership is typically FAR WORSE than Democrat political policy and leadership is THEIR FAULT, not mine. That YOU cant understand the difference between leadership and being led by the nose is YOUR FAULT, not mine!

That’s not my view, that’s historical fact! For goodness sake, haven’t you ever read a history book?

Absolutely amazing! Perhaps you would rather risk seeing the whole country collapse into total anarchy than own up to your deep seated prejudice. Perhaps you have a problem with seeing a black man have power and demonstrate real leadership. Perhaps your blind hatred goes far deeper than even you can understand.

In any case, you still, and probably never will, define that which you think is missing and put forth a positive, alternative solution. Hatred and fault-finding have a way of creating tunnel vision, so it comes down to simply this. Identifying problems, without the ability or effort to contribute to solutions means you must be racially prejudiced, a republican operative, or an anarchist.

In any case where I live, folks are smart enough to understand, no matter how easy it may be, we can’t blame Obama for our shortfalls! And we dont! And, we are even smart enough to have begun replacing a few of those old hanger-on-er repubs with some roll up your sleaves and get to work dems. ~Louise

Oh lord, there really is some liberal Mayberry out there…is the deputy allowed to have real bullets? Does he patrol the rainbows on his trusty unicorn?

All Democrats are good (except the more conservative ones) and all Republicans are bad.  Talk about puppy mentality.

Louise, the article says, “President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus package is helping to alleviate some of the pain, providing large amounts of money to pay for education and unemployment insurance, bolster food stamp programs and expand tax credits for low earners. But the money will offset only 40 percent of the losses in state revenues….”

The “losses in state revenues” are due to Obama’s cuts in funding to the states, due to HIS wars, which he voted to fund back when he was a Democratic Party Senator and they were still Bush/Cheney wars.

Democratic President Obama and the Democratic Congress have been rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help the neo-cons bail out the rich, and by continuing the BILL CLINTON expansion of NAFTA and the CLINTON cuts in social programs. Bush didn’t invent or initiate the Democratic Party policies of cutting social programs, deregulating industries, outsourcing jobs and factories, and expanding the defense budget, and Bush couldn’t have continued the Clinton policies without the full support of the Democratic Party.

For 8 years they sat on their butts and voted for everything that Bush/Cheney wanted, claiming that they couldn’t oppose Bush/Cheney policies because they were outnumbered, and now that they hold both the White House and Congress, the Democratic Party is continuing all the Clinton/Gore Bush/Cheney policies, like wars of aggression, torture, illegal wiretapping, deregulation, disastrous free trade agreements, cutting social programs, increasing the defense budget, etc., and trying to blame it all on Bush.

Are you so deluded that you still think that Bush is President and that it was Bush who just asked Congress for a huge increase in defense funding? In order to fund the bailouts to the rich, Obama and the Democratic Congress cut federal funding to the states. I know you think I’m making that up and that Obama magically created that money from nowhere or had the Fed print up a few trillion, but that’s not the case. Money was diverted from federal funding to the states, and put into Obama’s bailouts and Obama’s wars. So the states have to make drastic cuts in order to compensate.

Obama isn’t cutting taxes for the big guys, he’s cutting funding to the states so that he can give trillions to the big guys who already don’t pay hardly any taxes because Obama didn’t roll up his sleeves and repeal the Bush tax cuts to the rich.

Here’s an article you might find interesting:

The Smooth Criminal Transition from Bush/Cheney to Obama

The Democrats, who supported and voted for all the Bush/Cheney policies and protected Bush/Cheney from impeachment, are not expanding Bush/Cheney policies because they were never just Bush/Cheney policies—they were also Democratic Party policies. Many of them were Reagan policies—remember the Reagan Democrats? The Democratic Party has consistently moved towards the political right and is now so far to the right that it is outdoing the Republicans.

Mark E. Smith,
Taken from the article you posted:

“Battered by the recession and the deepest and most widespread budget deficits in several decades, a large majority of states are slicing into their social safety nets — often crippling preventive efforts that officials say would save money over time.”

And, “There are no good options, just less bad options.”

But no-where in the article can I find,

“At the same time, Obama cut funding to the states.”

Or,

“Obama is giving with one hand and taking back with the other, but the hand that takes is greedy and the hand that gives is stingy.”

Or, the most egregious duplicity,

“Due to Obama’s cuts.”

You just made all that up!

Perhaps you are one of many who simply choose to pretend all those years of republican control didn’t happen. I know lots like you. With the happy abandon of a fat puppy, you choose to only see your food dish! if it’s full life is good. If it’s not, life is bad. Republican policy kept a lot of fat puppies happy, but the devastation of playing without paying for all those years leaves the puppy skinny and wondering why the dish isn’t full. So the puppy bites the ankle of whoever stands in the kitchen. Of course he cant understand why foolish and irresponsible behavior by the Republicans put us in this mess! And I guess you have the same problem.

My State has been suffering shortfalls and budget cuts for years! ‘Course I’ve only lived here for 14, so maybe back when the State Legislature was controlled by dems it wasn’t so bad. In fact, I’ve been told it wasn’t. But I could cite example after example of stupid decisions made by the repub controlled State Legislature that helped slow things down. Like repubs everywhere, they are so fixated on cutting taxes for the big guy, they don’t understand without a tax-base, the bills don’t get paid! They cut off their toes at regular increments, then wonder why their toe-less feet keep them off balance! Dumb, really dumb.

In any case where I live, folks are smart enough to understand, no matter how easy it may be, we can’t blame Obama for our shortfalls! And we dont! And, we are even smart enough to have begun replacing a few of those old hanger-on-er repubs with some roll up your sleaves and get to work dems.

Louise writes, “Obama gave a tax-cut to 95% of the middle class!”

At the same time, Obama cut funding to the states (his stimulus to the states covers only 40% of what he took away—I’m not sure how a 60% cut in funding to the states can be called a stimulus). So 34 states have already cut social programs and more are likely to do so soon. Many of these programs saved taxpayer money, for example, providing services to low-income frail elderly people to enable them to live at home instead of having them go into assisted living facilities at taxpayer expense.

States Slashing Social Programs for Vulnerable

As the federal taxes to the middle class are cut, their state taxes will rise due to cuts in federal funding to the states.

Obama is giving with one hand and taking back with the other, but the hand that takes is greedy and the hand that gives is stingy.

Due to Obama’s cuts, California has eliminated dental care for Medi-Cal (Medic-Aid) recipients. That means that low income people who have an absessed tooth or other dental emergency will visit emergency rooms at $1,000 a pop to the taxpayer, and will get only painkillers, antibiotics, and referrals to dentists they can’t afford, because emergency rooms don’t pull teeth. Without dental care, most will return to the emergency room several times due to the pain.

For the elderly and disabled on SSI, California’s cuts are greater than the $250 stimulus they’ll get from Obama, so they’ll have a net loss in income for the year, while costs of things like public transportation are going up due to cuts in federal funding passed along by the state.

Since most Americans live in states that levy state taxes, and 49 out of 50 states are broke or close to it (one, North or South Dakota, I think, has a wholly state-owned bank and has a fiscal surplus), most will see their state taxes rise by more than the amount that their federal taxes are cut.

What is change we can believe in?

Seriously, what is change we can believe in? There certainly is no shortage of folks who tell us every day, in every way (ad-nauseum) we don’t have it, but they don’t tell us what it is.

Is it lobbying en mass the Congress? Is it bitching and moaning about taxes, or the “bailout?” Is it spending endless hours re-defining the past to justify blaming the present for the future? Is it civil disobedience? Seriously, what is change we can believe in?

Well, whatever it is, it sure isn’t defined by the endless stream of bitching and moaning that goes on and on, every day, in every way. Countless hours spent looking for an excuse to busily type another observation to justify bitching and moaning, for the sake of bitching and moaning.

Lobby Congress? No need, because as has been pointed out, we cant. (Don’t know why we cant ... to much work getting organized I guess.)

Bitch and moan about taxes and the bailout? Well that is being handled very efficiently by oh so many who think somehow that will make a difference. Oh, it has! Obama gave a tax-cut to 95% of the middle class! And the bailout? If financed by the value of our dollar is any indication, it’s being financed by some other country ... a well established practice started by that guy who called himself the “war president” and went on to borrow the money to finance his wars. Could that have contributed to the national debt? Naw ... it’s all Obama’s fault.

Defining the past to justify blaming the present for the future? OK, seems a lot of folks are really proficient at that. But that isn’t change. In fact that’s typical old-hat conservative thinking!

Civil disobedience? Heavens no! If organizing a lobby is hard, how much harder would civil disobedience be? Cripes! Nobody wants to be the front-runner leading the masses to change! Maybe we can call that, “outrage waiting for someone else to do it!”

Oh, I have it!

Change we can believe in means we can now spend endless hours typing our dissatisfaction! Then have the self-satisfaction of reading back to ourselves what a difference we are making! (NOT) Well, other than creating a sense of panic and hopelessness in an already frightened public.

Good job folks! You’ve snatched on to the same tool the repubs used to try and stop any efforts at recovery in the LAST Depression! What do we call that? Certainly it isn’t change we can believe in, because the only change it brought was slowing things down until they got much worse!

I’ve always thought ‘nobody vote’ should be the only thing on the slate of the political reformer.

Then there’s Larry Summers whom I heard interviewed (as long as my stomach could take it) and who when asked THE question like why did you do what you did in the ‘90’s, replied that he had no idea that Credit Default Swaps and Derivatives would “take off” like they did. Of course that answer can’t be challenged because it isn’t one so I just screamed “idiot” and changed channels.

Here’s an article that some might find interesting:

The Smooth Criminal Transition from Bush/Cheney to Obama

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13050

As Larry Chin writes:

“...the arrival of Obama as the new imperial figurehead of the Anglo-American empire is not a victory of, or for, the people. It will not signify a dramatic upheaval, in any way, and by no means is any sort of revolution at hand. This election was a necessary rotation of management, scripted at the highest levels of the Anglo-American elite.
[...]
For those who have spent the past eight hellish years opposing and resisting the crimes of Bush/Cheney, prepare yourselves for worse: the ‘friendliest’ fascism, and the most dangerous stealth messenger in history.”
—————

Chin is correct. Expanding our wars of aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan is not change we can believe in. Bailing out the rich is not change we can believe in. Putting the crooks in charge of government is not change we can believe in.

I have no respect for those who claimed to want peace but voted for somebody who was openly committed to war. Such voters are criminally insane and should be institutionalized as a danger to themselves and others. And I have even less respect for those who voted for a candidate they knew had no chance of winning, thereby delegating their power and authority to whoever won.

If you want chance, you have to stop repeating your old mistakes over and over. You can’t get peace and prosperity by voting for war and voodoo economics. How hard is that to understand?

Bisbonian, the only nonviolent way that I know of to change the system is to boycott elections and not vote.

This is from Allister Sparks’ book, “The Mind of South Africa,” about the situation you describe where few people vote but the government tries to claim legitimacy anyway. The Apartheid government of South Africa had just held an election and only 10% of the population voted.

“The boycott was a dramatic success, robbing the new system of legitimacy, and although the government accepted the result on August 28 and installed the new parliamentarians in their seats—one of them on the strength of a paltry 154 votes—a sense of triumph and expectation infused the black community. Five days later the great revolt began.”

Although our government could accept the results of an election where only 10% of Americans voted, and swear people into office who had only gotten three votes, nobody in the world would believe that such a government was legitimate and had the consent of the governed. Democracies all over the world would break off relations with the U.S., close their embassies and consulates here, boycott the dollar and American products, and refuse to have anything to do with a government that did not have the consent of the governed and was not democratically elected.

As long as people vote, the government can install whoever it wants and claim legitimacy. Al Gore won the election in 2000 but the Supreme Court refused to allow the votes to be counted and installed Bush. Yet, because people had voted, the government claimed to have held a democratic election and to have the consent of the governed. In 2004 John Kerry won but conceded before the votes could be counted, and again there were enough votes for the government to be able to claim the consent of the governed. In 2008, the only candidates with any chance of winning, the nominees of the two major parties, were both pro-war and pro-bailout, both members of a Congress that had only a 10% approval rating, and both supporters of the Bush agenda, yet once more enough people voted for the government to claim it had been democratically elected.

Only when people stop voting for a government that we cannot hold accountable, a government of which 90% of us do not approve, can we have a basis to nonviolently change the system.

If I offer you the choice between a poke in the eye and a punch in the nose, you might choose the punch in the nose as the less evil option. A sensible person would walk away and say that isn’t an acceptable choice. We are not held hostage. We don’t have to let the government limit our choices. If we don’t like the choices we’re offered, which are always between candidates we Constitutionally cannot hold accountable between elections, and who therefore cannot be forced to represent us, we can simply refuse to vote until we get rid of everybody in government and establish a system whereby we can vote directly on issues of importance.

That’s what our American tradition of democracy was about and it still survives in the New England Town Hall Meeting system where citizens vote directly on budgets and laws instead of voting for candidates to make important decisions for them.

90% of us opposed the bailouts, yet 50% of us voted for one of two pro-bailout candidates.

So maybe we are not yet capable of acting in our own best self interests. Maybe we are suckers for a smooth-talking politician’s campaign lies. Maybe we’re too immature to make our own decisions and we need mommy and daddy to tell us what to do. Maybe the 90% of Americans who opposed the bailouts were lying, and their protests were a sham, because half of them turned around and voted for one of the two pro-bailout candidates. Maybe 90% of Americans are masochists who will fight to the death for their right to vote against what they want.

What gives me hope is that half of us aren’t that stupid, and our numbers are growing.

(This is a continuation of my response to Mud below, which got cut off due to space limitations on comments, so please read the comment below first.)

Mud, every politician understands that they can fool some of the people all of the time, and some of the people some of the time, but that they don’t have to be able to fool all of the people all of the time because if they can just fool half of the fools into voting for them, once they’re in office they can do whatever they want and there’s absolutely nothing that the fools can do about it short of violent revolution. And this police state has that possibility very well covered also.

Until and unless we wise up and stop voting—stop delegating our power to people we cannot hold accountable, we won’t have any power. All they need to stay in office is to demonstrate the consent of the governed—that perhaps 20% of eligible voters voted for them, while their closest opponent only got 19% of the vote in an election where less than 50% of eligible voters even bothered to vote. That’s called the “winner take all” system, as opposed to proportional representation where the number of votes for a party determines how many seats they get in a legislative body. And if they can get the Supreme Court to intervene, or their opponent to concede before the votes are counted, they don’t even have to win an election to take power.

“We” cannot impeach. Only Congress can impeach and we cannot force Congress to represent us. So unless you’re a Member of Congress, who you calling “we?”

Mud asks, “We can still impeach can’t we??”

Well, actually, no we can’t. Only Congress can do that. And we can’t remove anyone from Congress. Only Congress can do that.

Article One, Section 5 of the Constitution,

“....Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…..”

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

That’s is why when Congressman John Olver was presented with a petition signed by 80% of his constituents asking that he support the impeachment of Bush, he responded, “Spare me! I’m fully aware that the overwhelming majority of my constituents support impeachment. I will not.”

Only Congress can impeach a President, and only Congress can remove one of its own Members. We the People have no Constitutional way to hold them accountable other than to petition them to impeach themselves, and as you may have noticed, that is not something they are very apt to do.

They can take impeachment off the table because even if 100% of the American public supported it, we have no way to hold them accountable or force them to impeach if they don’t want to.

A democracy is defined as a system of government where the supreme power is vested in the people and can be exercised by the people directly or through their elected representatives.

We cannot exercise our power directly. And we cannot exercise it through our elected representatives because we have no Constitutional way to hold them accountable or remove their from office. We can ask them to remove themselves and I’m sure they’ll have their staff thank us for our input and invite us to sign up for their newsletters, donate to their political campaigns, and vote for them. But they’re not going to remove themselves from office just because we want them to. If we don’t like what they’re doing, we can wait until the next election and try to elect somebody else we can’t hold accountable.

When you cannot exercise your power directly, and have no way to force your representatives to represent you so you cannot exercise your power through them, you have no power. That’s not a democracy, that’s the definition of a tyranny, where the people have no power.

We have only a vote and that vote is not a vote on issues, but merely a vote on which candidate we will not be able to hold accountable, we would like to make our decisions for us. A vote for somebody you cannot hold accountable, is not a voice in government.

Because we the people cannot directly remove a President, Vice-President, or Member of Congress from office, we have NO power over them during their terms of office, and that’s when they have our power of attorney, granted when we voted (whether we voted for them or for their opponents), to have full access to the national treasury, the U.S. military, and anything else they want until their terms of office expire.

Would you grant somebody you could not hold accountable, power of attorney over your finances for six years? Four years? Two years? How about a day? Would you give me full power of attorney over your finances for twenty-four hours if you could not hold me accountable during that time and would be responsible for any unauthorized debts I ran up in your name? How about if you had the power during those twenty-four hours to ask my best friend to ask me to stop spending your money? Would that make it okay? I mean, you trust people you can’t hold accountable for years at a time with trillions of dollars, why wouldn’t you trust me with your assets for a single day? How much could I spend in a mere twenty-four hours?

We can still impeach can’t we??
Put IMPEACHMENT on the table, center stage.
Impeach early, impeach often… sounds good.

We are a huge number, Doug Wilson.

90% of us opposed the bailouts.

90% of us gave Congress a low approval rating.

And then 50% of us turned around and voted to let a pro-bailout Congress and one of the two pro-bailout Members of Congress running for President, our authorization to keep screwing us.

Some did it out of party loyalty. Some did it out of lesser evilism, fearing that one pro-bailout candidate might be worse than the other pro-bailout candidate. Some did it because they don’t understand that once they are sworn into office, federal official can no longer be held accountable during their terms of office—you can wait until the next election and then try to vote for another candidate who won’t represent you, but you cannot remove them.

Think about it. If somebody steals your credit card, you just report it stolen and the card can be canceled instantly and you are responsible for no more than the first $50 of unauthorized charges. But if you vote, whoever is elected can steal your money for the duration of their term of office, usually two, four, or six years, you can’t stop them from continuing to run up unauthorized charges in your name, and you are responsible for every penney of the debts they run up—if you can’t pay them the debts get passed on to your children and grandchildren. If our credit card laws were as bad as our electoral system, nobody would ever have risked using one. Imagine phoned to report a stolen credit card and being told that it cannot be canceled, the thief must be allowed to continue to use it for four years, and that you will be responsible for any unauthorized charges.

That’s our government. Please people, stop voting for them. When you vote for people you cannot hold accountable, you’re giving away the store. You’re giving our national credit card to people who can’t be stopped from running up debts that we have to pay for. You wouldn’t do that with your own credit card, so why do you do it with everyone else’s?

Business as usual. And it might have worked too, except for some rather large and growing holes in the economy.

With more media B.S., about how there’s a glimmer of hope on the Horizon, and it’s not the same old bubble re inflating.

I wonder just how long they’ll be able to keep the B.S., going? 

I don’t think this country can survive another 4 years without any political leadership.

Financial job, corporate donations to politicians, sweet government job, back to a vastly improved financial job based on well you sellout of the American people to Wall Street interests. Lets have no more crocodile tears over the fake sacrifices that Wall Street types make when entering government service. Wall Street bankers and their paid-off politicians, including most Democrats and all Republicans, are just slimy crooks, preying on the people for their own benefit: DISGUSTING! The American two party system: outright crooks vs. stab you in the back crooks, in the end, you are just as dead.

and we didn’t get a kiss….

Remember all you happily satisfied partisans out there.

This most historic rape of the American population has been brought to you through the ongoing cooperation of your beloved democratic and republican parties.

We are getting exactly what we deserve.

godistwaddle,  i will laugh at your humor as soon as i quit crying

Politicians, like whores, can be bought.  They are, in fact, sexually acrobatic, dropping to their knees for corporations, spreading their legs for lobbyists, and SIMULTANEOUSLY (imagine!!) screwing their constituents.  They are marvels.

Wonderful. Thank you. LOL