Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 23, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size






The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Do Not Pity the Democrats

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 12, 2010
AP / Elise Amendola

By Chris Hedges

There are no longer any major institutions in American society, including the press, the educational system, the financial sector, labor unions, the arts, religious institutions and our dysfunctional political parties, which can be considered democratic. The intent, design and function of these institutions, controlled by corporate money, are to bolster the hierarchical and anti-democratic power of the corporate state. These institutions, often mouthing liberal values, abet and perpetuate mounting inequality. They operate increasingly in secrecy. They ignore suffering or sacrifice human lives for profit. They control and manipulate all levers of power and mass communication. They have muzzled the voices and concerns of citizens. They use entertainment, celebrity gossip and emotionally laden public-relations lies to seduce us into believing in a Disneyworld fantasy of democracy.

The menace we face does not come from the insane wing of the Republican Party, which may make huge inroads in the coming elections, but the institutions tasked with protecting democratic participation. Do not fear Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Do not fear the tea party movement, the birthers, the legions of conspiracy theorists or the militias. Fear the underlying corporate power structure, which no one, from Barack Obama to the right-wing nut cases who pollute the airwaves, can alter. If the hegemony of the corporate state is not soon broken we will descend into a technologically enhanced age of barbarism. 

Investing emotional and intellectual energy in electoral politics is a waste of time. Resistance means a radical break with the formal structures of American society. We must cut as many ties with consumer society and corporations as possible. We must build a new political and economic consciousness centered on the tangible issues of sustainable agriculture, self-sufficiency and radical environmental reform. The democratic system, and the liberal institutions that once made piecemeal reform possible, is dead. It exists only in name. It is no longer a viable mechanism for change. And the longer we play our scripted and absurd role in this charade the worse it will get. Do not pity Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. They will get what they deserve. They sold the citizens out for cash and power. They lied. They manipulated and deceived the public, from the bailouts to the abandonment of universal health care, to serve corporate interests. They refused to halt the wanton corporate destruction of the ecosystem on which all life depends. They betrayed the most basic ideals of democracy.  And they, as much as the Republicans, are the problem.

“It is like being in a pit,” Ralph Nader told me when we spoke on Saturday. “If you are four feet in the pit you have a chance to grab the top and hoist yourself up. If you are 30 feet in the pit you have to start on a different scale.”

All resistance will take place outside the arena of electoral politics. The more we expand community credit unions, community health clinics and food cooperatives and build alternative energy systems, the more empowered we will become. 

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
“To the extent that these organizations expand and get into communities where they do not exist, we will weaken the multinational goliath, from the banks to the agribusinesses to the HMO giants and hospital chains,” Nader said. 

The failure of liberals to defend the interests of working men and women as our manufacturing sector was dismantled, labor unions were destroyed and social services were slashed has proved to be a disastrous and fatal misjudgment. Liberals, who betrayed the working class, have no credibility. This is one of the principal reasons the anti-war movement cannot attract the families whose sons and daughters are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. And liberal hypocrisy has opened the door for a virulent right wing. If we are to reconnect with the working class we will have to begin from zero. We will have to rebuild the ties with the poor and the working class which the liberal establishment severed. We will have to condemn the liberal class as vociferously as we condemn the right wing. And we will have to remain true to the moral imperative to foster the common good and the tangible needs of housing, health care, jobs, education and food.

We will, once again, be bombarded in this election cycle with messages of fear from the Democratic Party—designed, in the end, to serve corporate interests. “Better Barack Obama than Sarah Palin,” we will be told. Better the sane technocrats like Larry Summers than half-wits like John Bolton. But this time we must resist. If we express the legitimate rage of the dispossessed working class as our own, if we denounce and refuse to cooperate with the Democratic Party, we can begin to impede the march of the right-wing trolls who seem destined to inherit power. If we again prove compliant we will discredit the socialism we should be offering as an alternative to a perverted Christian and corporate fascism. 

The tea party movement is, as Nader points out, “a conviction revolt.” Most of the participants in the tea party rallies are not poor. They are small-business people and professionals. They feel that something is wrong. They see that the two parties are equally responsible for the subsidies and bailouts, the wars and the deficits. They know these parties must be replaced. The corporate state, whose interests are being championed by tea party leaders such as Palin and Dick Armey, is working hard to make sure the anger of the movement is directed toward government rather than corporations and Wall Street. And if these corporate apologists succeed, a more overt form of corporate fascism will emerge without a socialist counterweight.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By archivesDave, October 19, 2010 at 3:23 am Link to this comment

Thanx Napolean,
just listening to your Garry Wills/UC Berkeley link again for the second time….Getting some more out of it.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

The size of the U.S. Federal government alone is unbelievable when considering all the agencies stemming from it and all the business which is subsidized from it ( grants and government contracts )... one really sees the size of the empire and how that money flow is the only thing keeping those men employed, on their own dole and furthering their agenda.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment

One must consider this video as this gentleman explains the continuity of government and how our government offices are full of hired hands for an invisible group.

Good stuff, click on the movie icon to see video… he gets into the meat at @ 30min in…

Enjoy:

http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?seriesid=00ec12bc-f99a-4696-825c-9b1e0453e1e1

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 18, 2010 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

gary w, October 18 at 1:06 am:

Anarcissie,
Hey, brother, you are the one that hijacked the thread and made it about Rome…nitpicking in an effort to refute something I said.  Rome was used merely as an illustration. A metaphor if you will. ...

Right.  You think of Rome as a good example of the benefits of strong government, whereas I think of it as a good example of the evils of strong government.  So we would be likely to talk about Rome.  I don’t see it as hijacking, though, since you brought Rome up in the first place and it is indeed a symbol of a certain kind of politics.

But meanwhile the discussion has gone happily onward into ever-deepening monarchicalism and conspiratism.  I wonder if there’s a connection.  But my wonder is probably not strong enough to keep me around.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 18, 2010 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

Napolean and BR:

Excellent words of wisdom from both of you.
I just wonder how much longer it will take for some
here to wake up to the fact that they’ve ‘been had’
and whistle blowers like Alex Jones, Michael Ruppert, and Ventura really do know what they’re talking about BIGTIME!!!!
Here’s a classic clip on Ruppert:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/josephwouk/videos/52/

Kubler-Ross’ five stages of grief:
Many appear stuck in the denial stage with few in the anger, bargaining, or acceptance.

Fortunately, the way out of this rut is pro-action
which is what some of us are now choosing instead of continuing down the road to insanity or impotency.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

oops..

TOO real / unreal.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

BR549, very well said.. and thanks for sharing that.

Very insightful.

It is difficult to see reality.. to real / unreal.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 18, 2010 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

Dave,
My brother, as much as I love him, would always find a way to twist a
conversation toward discussing one-sided philosophical topics that obviously
no one else could follow. It made him seem like the brightest light on the Xmas
tree until, sooner or later, it became apparent that he wasn’t plugged into the
same outlet as everyone else. Sooner or later, he’d overload his circuit, his
circuit breaker would trip, and everyone else’s lights would be lit except his
........... so to speak.

Anyway, more to the point, he had, and still has, no room in his paradigm to accommodate the connection of the dots that those who don’t yet understand the issues call “conspiracy theory”. He would just casually dismiss any talk of these “irrelevant issues” and try to squeeze Nietsche, Hegel, or Hume into the discussion so that he could discuss something that he understood. It didn’t change anything. Everyone else was up to speed but him, although he was considered to be the family genius.

People might say to me, “Oh, you’re one of those ‘conspiracy nuts’, which was one way of dismissing the fact that they were totally unprepared to discuss these issues and it would continue to give them the excuse they needed to keep sitting on their ass and avoiding any meaningful dialogue.

As with my family, when I brought all this stuff up six years ago, what do I say now? I told you so? Or is it that those people are being forced to transition from a state of denial to a slow process of acceptance?

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

I think we can see the shills coming out of their closet…. or they simply may be chattel waking up from their servitude to Caesar.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

Here’s an experiment!

Everyone, whip out your checkbook now, ok?

Now, look at where you endorse it.

Notice that line you sign on?

Guess what?

It is NOT A SOLID LINE.

Grab a magnifying glass or your bifocals…. and take a look-see real quick!

Notice that?

What does it say folks?

Riddle me this, batmen and women.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 18, 2010 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

Truthdig is filling up my emale; I have been missing my HOt Hilda emales because of it; and this thread is the reason, what in hell is going on here? Not conspiracies again? Seems the need to believe and then proselytize conspiracies seems as important to some as religion is to others, or they could be the same peoples with what seems the same mental dysfunction?

I believe in conspiracies, and religion is the most conspicuous in your face conspiracies there is, almost equal to the conspiracies of politics.

Anything is considered a conspiracy if more than one person is involved and you ain’t one of those persons!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 18, 2010 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

Way…ell archivesDave, maybe I fell off the turnip truck but the way I
see it you are still under the ton of turnips it is truckin.  It is warm
and cozy there, isn’t it?  It never ceases to amaze me the number
of ne-er-do-thinkers that cling to belief systems that takes its
prescriptions for thought from prophets and soothsayers, who
embrace the shamanic occult and let their minds be trampled by
the mumbo-jumbo as you call it with little independence from an
authority figure.  It is a lack to achieve self-sovereignty and a giving
up one’s mind to the domination of another.  It is celebrity worship of
a sordid sort.  It is a yielding to a form of what Max Weber called
Chrismatic authority. Charismatic authority is that kind of authority that
is derived from “the gift of grace” from a “higher power” or “inspiration,’
that allegedly is superior to the validity of rational control.  Followers
accept this and are willing to follow this higher or inspired authority
into the doldrums of despair, where they keep the followers with their
gilded words.  You are certainly free to believe as you wish.  But then
so am I.  I choose to retain control of my mind to the nth degree that is
possible.  I encourage all developed minds to do the same.

There will always be those who fall into the sway of conspiracy
paranoia.  It serves a particular psychological need to see a power
outside of oneself in the face of the immediately unexplainable.  It is
the primitive and infantile need for a parent, unable to break away,
screaming like the two year old “mommy don’t leave me!”  It is a
rejection of adulthood. 

Do get yourself a copy of Gunter Grass’s The Tin Drum.  Better yet,
get the DVD.  I am afraid that Hagger and his ilk will go down in history
as just another hack thinker who loves to sell books and knew how to
push the buttons of the very afraid.  Conspiracies such as his do not in
any way move history and if they make any difference it is at the
margin of society.  History happens from deep and wide forces and
large organizations of unified human activity.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 18, 2010 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

Perspective, research and following the money… THAT will read you ‘real’ history minus the talking points and things of NON interest ( part of the fairly tale story, omitting the big bad wolf’s character ).

The omissions are so outrageous… no wonder why the public still believes in democracy when we live in a republic, no wonder why folks STILL think the other party will do right this time when we’ve had ONE party and collusion for some time now….

Report this

By elisalouisa, October 18, 2010 at 6:22 am Link to this comment

The only way to know a book is to read it. The Syndicate by Nicholas Hagger has over 100 pages of Notes and Sources. Some continue to ridicule the mumbo jumbo of religion while ignoring the real mumbo jumbo; the history of this country as told in our educational system. Recommended reading: <i>The Creature from Jekyll Island< /i> giviing in detail the role financiers have play in shaping of our country.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 18, 2010 at 12:07 am Link to this comment

Shen:
“I have always thought the obsession with masons, freemasonry,
Rosicrucianism, and other Christian mysticisms, and alchemism
were a crock that plays into the Little Boys Syndrome and their
imaginations, especially those that are fascinated by conspiracies,
and secret organizations you know, Dan Brown, the Illuminati, and so
forth.  There are better history books I’ve read in college classes.”

I thought I knew you better than this Shen but then
again, I thought you knew me better as well….Guess
that’s what happens when one ASS U ME s as you have so obviously done here…

Let’s see now, you don’t believe in conspiracies…
hmmm….Oswald and Booth were the sole villains…no conspiracy there, right?
Gulf of Ton-quin and ‘The Maine’... no conspiracy there either eh?  First World war, Gulf Wars?,...
Good grief, you really did flip off a turnip truck!

I doubt if you’ve taken some time to really get into
Georg Hegel, Francis Bacon, Albert Pike, Manly Hall,
and Madam Blavatsky.  If you had, you would clearly see the interconnection between COLLUSION and CONSPIRACY. 
Let’s take the collusion between big Intl Pharma
and the entire SICK medical empire built on disease
instead of health: Another prime OBVIOUS example of CONSPIRACY (and collusion). 
I could go on and on with THOUSANDS of other examples but it seems you prefer to remain in that
never never land of denial. 
Of course you’re in very good company with about 98 percent of the population (and I’m including myself
since I’m certain there are some aspects of history
that I’m reticent to dissect as well..)
Something about a ‘can of worms’ that we would just as soon not open.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 17, 2010 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment

archivesDave, October 18 at 2:39 am – To ‘peruse’ I’d have to buy
Hagger’s book and I do not want to spend my money on the drivel
and dross. I did more or less peruse it for free at Amazon’s Look
Inside. 

I have always thought the obsession with masons, freemasonry,
Rosicrucianism, and other Christian mysticisms, and alchemism
were a crock that plays into the Little Boys Syndrome and their
imaginations, especially those that are fascinated by conspiracies,
and secret organizations you know, Dan Brown, the Illuminati, and so
forth.  There are better history books I’ve read in college classes.  The
seriousness with which men are so entertained by such adolescent
romanticism is mind boggling: first there were the Catholics and their
“secret’ societies, one of the church’s insidious ways to put the mind of
men in chains, and their dark and esoteria of inquisitions, and the
Popes knights, the Knight Templars, the Maguses, then there was the
Reformation then the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Reformation or
Catholic Revival…then we cannot forget the fierce and militant Jesuits
all that delight the fancy of spiritual power or the Holy Grail (thank
you Monty Python for putting a spin of reality on the entire enterprise. 
LOL).  Course the updated version are ‘Net computer games like Blood
Death Knight Vs. Fury Warrior. Whoooooeeeeee, I know it is close to
Halloween, but really!  I know I know…I ain’t got no respettt.  By the
way, indubitably Hitler was of a ‘religious’ or mystical persuasion. 
Or we could go into a Carl Jung psychological types analysis.  I just say,
get a grip!

Let me make myself perfectly clear.  I do not grab at straws or anything
else in the vicinity.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 17, 2010 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

gary w:
“Are you a fan of Ayn Rand? Sounds like it.  Sounds as if you’re reaching, as if you’re needing to impress everyone with your intellect.  I’ve read Dostoevsky, I’ve even read Rand’s *Atlas Shrugged* (and disagreed with every word in it)—does my reading list make me an intellectual too?”

I have absolutely NO desire to impress anyone with anything!... This is also the sentiment of Ventura if you have watched many of his clips which is why I admire the man so much.  He simply tells it like it is, not caring one whit what we may think about him.

You obviously have not read many of my threads since
I have repeatedly stated that I am no admirer of Ayn
Rand or Ron Paul.  I certainly paid my dues studying
Rand and once adhered to some of the swill in my younger days.  I agree with Thom Hartmann that Libertarians are often covert Repubs who just want to smoke dope and get laid.
Ventura does have some Libertarian leanings but he
is FAR deeper and more pragmatic than either Ayn Rand or Ron Paul.
As a follower of Christ, I do believe in ‘Rendering
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.  This means that government has the mandate responsibility
to regulate and not allow the Corporatist Banksters, Fascists, and Oligarchs to destroy our sovereignty
and ramrod us into this now arrived Global Empire
that is ninety percent established thanks to both parties and now the Teapartyers and Beck as well.

Obama, Clinton, Gore, McCain, both Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, and even Kennedy’s advisors were all cut from the cloth;
BR549 and Napolean are telling it like it is whether or not you want to believe them.
One of the best pieces of poetry and philosophy to come out of the Eagles was a little ditty entitled, “Get Over It” and it’s worth reviewing periodically:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMAv1n8ieWE

If you don’t get all of the words, you can find those with a little persistence.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 11:05 pm Link to this comment

no thank you, dave. I prefer to get my history from people whose only interest is history- preferably a specialist of one era.  Writing a history text of even a fairly recent event, such as one single campaign of our Civil War, involves serious study of thousands of documents.  I edited one such history whose author was a professor of history; it took him four years to research ,and with my help, three years to write.  The book was nominated for two prestigious prizes seven years ago. 

Hagger is prolific.  Evidently Hagger completes a book in about three days.  Not the least interested in such cavalier treatment of history.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 17, 2010 at 10:39 pm Link to this comment

gary w and Shen:
You guys both are grasping for straws re Hagger.
....Jumping to ‘universalist conclusions’ from a smattering of some of his poetry or mishmash
hearsay others may have versed.
His ‘Secret History of the West’ and ‘The Syndicate’
both have comprehensive bibliographies by highly esteemed historians that take up a substantial portion of the latter part of his works.  Do yourselves a favor and at least peruse them.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 10:21 pm Link to this comment

archivesDav, this debate has wandered off into the absurd.  Niki Hagger is principally a poet. I’ve read a couple of what he euphemistically claims are short stories, and have no desire to read any history compiled by the man.  Are you a fan of Ayn Rand? Sounds like it.  Sounds as if you’re reaching, as if you’re needing to impress everyone with your intellect.  I’ve read Dostoevsky, I’ve even read Rand’s *Atlas Shrugged* (and disagreed with every word in it)—does my reading list make me an intellectual too?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 17, 2010 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment

BR549, October 17 at 5:38 pm – political progress like evolution is
slow. In a large socially diverse nation as the US, there are
310,502,633 Americans, of that, in 2008 the voting age population
was 231,229,589.  Voter turnout was 132,618,589.  The highest
percentage 56.8% since 1968.  To affect each and every one of that
56.8% to change the political climate it would take at least 51%.  It
simply isn’t in the numbers even if half the voters were lemmings. 

Why should anyone trust the ultra-right-wing conservatism of Craig
Steiner to report Clinton’s budget as a deficit when in fact the federal
budget was showing a $127-billion surplus?  The Clinton tax increases
of the 1990s produced a surplus.  According to Factcheck, “the latest
word from CBO, the 2010 deficit will ring in at about $1.3 trillion.
How’d we get there? We only need to go back 10 years, to the point
when the Clinton administration was leaving office after four straight
years of budget surpluses, with an even bigger surplus projected for
fiscal year 2001.”  Good grief.
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
THE LARGEST BUDGET SURPLUS AND DEBT PAY-DOWN IN HISTORY
More…
http://factcheck.org/2010/10/sunday-replay-25/
Also, according to CBO’s historical budget figures, the surplus for the
2001 fiscal year was only $128.2 billion. (That’s the last budget year for
which former President Bill Clinton was mostly responsible, and the last
before Republicans controlled the White House and both chambers of
Congress.)
Republicans and Republican shills on TD always want to deny the
Clinton miracle.  LOL.
Also, http://factcheck.org/2010/02/a-texas-size-whopper/
Texas Rep. Jeb Hensarling told a Texas-size whopper — and then tried
to claim Republican credit for Blll Clinton’s budget surpluses. 

In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes
for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90%
of small businesses,[59] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of
taxpayers.[60] Additionally, through the implementation of spending
restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years.

Also Nicholas Hagger’s universalism?  So we are back at that again! 
Rehashing is sooo boring.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 10:11 pm Link to this comment

BR SAID: “It might “appear” as though Clinton left a surplus if we only looked at the “Public Debt”, but the total National Debt…”

Aw, Christ, guy! No one claimed that Clinton wiped out the total national debt (200+ years in the making).  What I said, what Clinton said, what the CBO said, what the Fed chairman said—what everyone but even the most recalcitrant conservatives admitted—is that he did in fact create three years in a row of budgetary (yearly, dude) surplus, and that if his budgetary plan had been stuck to, the surpluses would have continued for a minimum of ten years, totaling over one trillion dollars.  Greenspan complained, you ought to remember, that the surplus was a bad thing, in that if the total national debt were wiped out, in order to not ruin the economy the Feds would have to begin buying land for investment purposes.  How old are you—don’t you remember any of that?

Don’t try to play this game with me.  you want an honest debate, hell, I’ll go at it as long as you will.  But don’t nitpick, don’t try to pick apart my arguments with crap like this.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 17, 2010 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

gary w:
Do you know who Nicholas Hagger is & have you read
any of his works? 
His last book was entitled ‘The Syndicate’ and I think
you may come out with a totally different perspective
on ancient as well as current events if you choose to
indulge.
He has a new book coming out very soon which I can’t wait to get my hands on since everything he discussed
in ‘The Syndicate’ six yrs ago is right on schedule!

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Gary,

It might “appear” as though Clinton left a surplus if we only looked at the
“Public Debt”, but the total National Debt also includes intragovernment
holdings, which has been conveniently left out of the picture.

The Soc Sec Admin is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy US Govt
securities, and the US Govt readily sells those securities ..... which automatically
and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings.

Soc Sec had more money coming in than it paid out in benefits and all that
extra money was immediately used to buy US Government securities. The
government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money
coming from excess Social Security contributions during the dotcom bubble,
there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the
public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to
skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down
because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by
borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Clinton’s last budget ended in Oct of 2001, ten months into Bush’s first term
and what we wound up with, rather than a $66B surplus, was actually a $95B
deficit.

I truncated this info to make it fit here, but that’s the gist of it. (from Craig
Steiner)

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,
Hey, brother, you are the one that hijacked the thread and made it about Rome…nitpicking in an effort to refute something I said.  Rome was used merely as an illustration. A metaphor if you will. 

If you were correct about Rome and I wrong (I am not wrong, as I proved), I would still be 100% correct in my original argument—say, do you even remember what the thread is about? 

The thread concerned an article by Hedges, a naderite, urging voters to abandon Democrats and waste their vote on ralphie.
In my reply to the article, I asserted that Nader may be a shill for the republicans—he certainly acts like one, coming out of his cave one year before presidential elections, working like hell to split the Democratic vote.

You or brwhoever or archivedave brought up Ventura and the Paul family as viable candidates. Which I rightly ridiculed.  Ventura would make a fine wrestler. Ronnie Paul is an idiot who wants to destroy social security.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 17, 2010 at 8:51 pm Link to this comment

gary w:
“How about it, guys, you want a privatized FDA overseeing pharmacies?”
Gary, you definitely need a good helping of Nicholas
Hagger to give you a clearer perspective of history…Too much college professorial pap in your dialog.
Check out that ‘turnip truck’ the current crop of FDAers are cruising in…THEY’RE ALREADY PRIVATIZED
and owned lock stock and barrel by BIG PHARMA!!
Go back and study Ventura some more and you’ll see that this is exactly WHAT HE IS OPPOSED TO!!!!

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2010 at 8:36 pm Link to this comment

gary w, October 18 at 12:02 am

Anarcissie,

Grin.  If you want to get technical about it, the United States itself is not a democracy….

—which is why I was careful to refer to common modern usage, where democracy often means the kind of arrangement where most adult citizens can vote to choose among a small selection of representatives.  Certainly not much kratia for the demos, but that’s what they call it.  I don’t think there was much of that sort of thing at Rome even during the early, misty, sort-of-pre-imperial days of the Republic.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie,

Grin.  If you want to get technical about it, the United States itself is not a democracy; it is a republic—that fact is even in the pledge of allegiance.  So playing the semantics game won’t work against me, and it demeans those who use the tactic. It’s an admission that your argument has fallen flat.

Here, I’ll give you a history lesson.  Rome held elections for its senators, who then elected their consuls (i.e., prime minister, chairman, whatever you wish to call it). They had no ballot box; they relied on public acclaim during election rallies. 
Candidates in effect bought the votes of the crowd with feasts and silver party favors.  But it was in fact as good a democracy/republic as the world knew until the US came along.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2010 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

gary w—I have read a great deal about Rome and nothing I have read indicated to me that it was ever a democracy in any sense in which most of us use that word today.  Agreed, the word is thrown about with great abandon, and it is almost certain some authors will call Rome democratic just as there are some who call it socialist (or whatever).  You are free to call Rome whatever you want; but when I use the term democratic I mean something different from went on in Rome in any period I know about.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Rome fell due to decadence, from the top down.

By the time the revelry reached the commons… the elites went elsewhere to subdue someone new.

What we are witnessing is / was the sifting of America ... which left her Amerika.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 6:44 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, I’m afraid I must ask you to educate yourself.
http://www.unrv.com/government.php
The Roman government (in its entire history from founding to fall) was a strange mix of a democracy and a republic. An interesting fact ist that the people of Rome took many of their ideas of government from the Ancient Greeks.

The Roman state was described as the republic (respublica) and its consuls, or chief magistrates, continued to be appointed even after the establishment of one-man rule under the empire, but in its pure form it lasted only until the beginning of the first century B.C.

At the creation of the republic, supreme power probably resided with a popular assembly, but early on the Senate became very influential, and the traditional formula, which survived for centuries, was S.P.Q.R. - Senatus Populusque Romanus - the Roman Senate and People acting together.

The above is an excerpt from one of several thousand cites that disagree with your assertion.

Having discovered that you pull your facts out of ..., I’ll refrain from responding to you again.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

BR549,
You’ve made a lot of asinine assertions, which cannot be proven.  I won’t take your word for anything thing you claimed to be fact. I’m assuming you got this conspiracy theory from the ex-wrestler Ventura?

No, let’s blame it on your libertarian attitude, and a short memory.  Weeks after Bush was elected, a republican-appointed Fed chairman confirmed that the economy was in great shape, that the projected $1 trillion+ surplus over the next decade was very real.  He met with leading repugs, and cheney must have read him the riot act, because quite suddenly he changed his tune and agreed that Clinton’s success was not real.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2010 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

Rome was never a democracy. 

The basis of its economy, slavery and theft, did work for awhile, but it rotted away the social order of those who were privileged enough to receive material benefits.  (Most of the Roman Empire’s subjects were, of course, slaves or serfs of some kind.)  As I said before, admiration for this sort of thing depends on your values.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 17, 2010 at 5:32 pm Link to this comment

Gary,
I hate to burst your bubble there, guy, but the Clinton surplus was a flat out
paper shuffle. I saw that in 2000, where Bush was handed a ‘house of cards’ by
Clinton. Bush did the same thing with Obama, trying to hide as much of the
malfeasance as possible before the cards blew down in the slightest wind.

The Clintons (that’s BOTH of them) are about as deep into the country’s
troubles as the Bush family ever was. It was Clinton who finally signed us up
for NAFTA, initiated the wire tapping issue, was angered when questioned
about the detention camps now all over the country, and under him the
Paraguayan/US extradition treaty was renegotiated to exclude crimes of a
military or political nature ......... Gee, then under Bush the Idiot, we had the
WTC false flag, and Dubya winds up mysteriously buying 99,980 acres in
Paraguay. Oh, and let’s not forget Glass-Steagall. That was Clinton’s gift to his
fellow citizens.

Gore, unfortunately, is so deep into this financial mess, I’m surprised you could
say what you did. It’s one thing to have felt that way back then, but too much
has surfaced about him as well; his relationship with Armand Hammer for one
thing, which he refuses to talk about.

Gary, look at it this way, if they made it to the top, it was usually at someone
else’s expense, and the further toward the top they made it, there were most
likely a lot of trampled people ....... and that goes for both sides of the aisle.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment

The argument for one of the two party ( one party ) IS DEAD.

To expect the people to continue to believe that lie is NULL AND VOID.

To continue to argue and suppose THINKERS are going to think in that 1984 paradigm for one moment longer… you’ll have to apply shock therapy you shysters… for NO ONE is going to swallow that ANYMORE!

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

People, the outsourcing of jobs turned what folks would define a middle class to be… into a lower class, by finance, by the fiat… by the trickery of the manipulation of currency, as this $*&^$*$ once said:

“Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws.” —Amschel Rothchild

Now we’ve had Obama in office ( the other choice other than the obvious slave master ), yet the remnants of Katrina and the region’s open sore is STILL NOT tended to nor close to healing.

The truth is expelling the moles.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie, I both agree and disagree with you. 

True, Rome was imperialistic; it did indeed rob from foreign peter in order to enrich Roman paul.  The conquered probably would have preferred that they remain uncivilized. 

However, I was referring to the benefit to Rome (and by extension, to the United States) of strong government. 

The U.S. is now and has always been imperialistic—our government has engineered revolutions in other nations in order to establish puppet regimes that would allow our corporations to plunder their natural resources.  We the People all benefited from the imperialism.  The Roman people (its citizens, not its slaves) benefited greatly from the conquests of France, Gaul, etc. And I remind you that during its greatest days, Rome was at least figuratively a democracy. 

We all decry the outsourcing of American jobs.  But speaking in a purely moral sense, every American job lost benefits the starving of other nations. So, in that sense I—gasp!—find myself in agreement with Chamber of Commerce’s Donohue, who said that outsourcing was a good thing.  However, I like America’s exalted position in the world; I like it that our street people live better than the middle class of most other nations. I can sympathize with the downtrodden, but I am not volunteering to share the little I have with a Bangladesh mother of sixteen. My liberalism extends only to my nation’s borders: America first, last and always.  By America, I mean the America of the working class majority—the people the Republican Party exploits to the benefit of the wealthiest 1%.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

NAPOLEON SAID: “It didn’t matter if Bush won by 600, 6000, or 6 million or lost by that much… history would have been penned the same, just another captain at the helm…”

My friend, surely your memory is not so short!

If President Gore had been allowed to take office, 9/11 might—might—still have happened.  If so, Gore would have used law enforcement to go after the attackers. That’s the tactic Clinton used, and it earned America support even among Arab nations—and all but one of those who participated in the Towers basement bombing went to prison.  I guarantee you that if Gore had been president, he would not have been riding a bike when Katrina was expected to strike America; the funding for N.O. levees would not have been cut by 2/3 as Bush did.  Bush’s tax cuts and his two unfunded wars would not have turned Clinton’s surplus into a multi-trillion-dolalr deficit.  As importantly, Gore would not have allowed Bush’s Hank Paulson to deregulate—without authorization from Congress—the financial markets.  My friend, Bush was a disaster for this nation.  Gore would have been a very good president.

So, you see, the 97,000+ Nader votes that put Bush in the WH made a very big difference in all our lives.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 17, 2010 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

Napolean,
“Whatever this party will be called ( Socialist Party ), it needs to adhere itself to the
principles in the Constitution, ........”

Why not the “Constitution Party?” It would look awfully strange to have the
Constitution trashed by it’s namesake.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, October 17, 2010 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

gary w, October 17 at 5:57 pm:

... Dudes, Rome changed the world, built fabulous roads and sewer systems and eradicated starvation in every nation they occupied because they had a strong central government. ...

Well, no.  Roman rule, for instance, was so bad that large regions of Gaul—the very fertile country that is now France—were depopulated.  It was for this reason that they let German tribes immigrate, which eventually led to the collapse of the Western Empire, since the Germans didn’t share the previous inhabitants’ willingness to submit to slavery.  Rome was essentially an enormous slave plantation, and I agree it was a very good example of strong government, with values akin to those of Mussolini and Hitler, but not a very good advertisement to those who have different values.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 17, 2010 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

Sometimes, we the people deserve the lesser of two evils, especially
when we cannot see the difference between the necessary evils of
regulation due to the self-serving entrenchment of those who would
barter the necessities for the underprivileged society to live decently
because of their own elitism and the actual unnecessary evils
perpetrated by the elitists.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

Jeezus! Is anyone posting to this website actually endorsing a Paul as presidential material????

Paul father and son… who believe that social security is communistic and ought to be abolished, who believe that even our military ought to be privatized. 

Likewise, Jesse Ventura is an arch conservative—he doesn’t deny being an economic conservative and socially a liberal.  Favoring pro-choice and the right of gays to marry does not a Liberal make.  Ventura, also, wants to privatize many essential governmental services.  How about it, guys, you want a privatized FDA overseeing pharmacies? how about privatized EPA inspectors? how about, when your home is broken into, and you call the cops they ask whether you can write them a check when they arrive?

Dudes, Rome changed the world, built fabulous roads and sewer systems and eradicated starvation in every nation they occupied because they had a strong central government.  Weak governments cannot defend their people from exploitation by 1)other governments (2) their own bi governments. 

Government regulation that is so despised by libertarians and tea baggers is a necessary evil in human societies.  Without it, our children would be enslaved to dangerous manufacturing machines or be sold as sex slaves; our food and water would make us ill; our doctors would perform unnecessary surgeries in order to pocket big fees; our—- oh, wait, most of that is already true, here in America, and we are already regulated.  But what if we weren’t? what if no one had the power to make BP at least attempt to clean the oil out of the ocean?

Sorry to insult the common sense of libertarian tea-bagger types, but, guys, government regulations overseeing big business are a necessary evil.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

It didn’t matter if Bush won by 600, 6000, or 6 million or lost by that much… history would have been penned the same, just another captain at the helm…

For the empire will be steered, whether by a son of the patrician class or son of the plebeian class… but it will be steered by either ONE…. unless…

We begin to recognize the empire for what it is…. and stop willfully using their paradigms and catch-22 of talking in circles between DEM and REP…

FOR THAT WILL BE THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY… doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

AmeriKa cannot wait any longer for these people to break their faith in the fiat… they must be led by example..

And those example are among us, we must muster them.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

Adree, I was posing a question for others to respond to.

And just because the question is worded and sequenced in a certain way, MAY mean its author purposed a bias… as to arouse those who may actually have something to say ( which you have, thank you ) and show who has their thinking cap on…. and who doesn’t.

I would have loved to have seen Nader take the presidency… but we have issues with getting a third party candidate on ballots, as Nader may have mentioned and where I know I’ve heard Ventura state.

And thanks for the theatre mention, good stuff, huh? 

Oh we need today’s poets to lay their prose on us!


She and others:

Could you imagine a SEPARATE party consisting of Kucinich, Sanders, Ventura, Grayson, and those others who called out the fraudulent banksters during the crash, who told those getting foreclosed on to stay in their homes…

“Separate yourselves from them.” “Come out and away from them.”

Whatever this party will be called ( Socialist Party ), it needs to adhere itself to the principles in the Constitution, Congress managing and printing the country’s currency via Treasury, NOT FED via Treasury, and many more things to clean house.

Stalemates will be inevitable unless the power to print the nation money is returned to Congress, our DIRECTLY elected representatives ( no officials ) and our other hired employees.

And there needs to be an amendment stating simply, those who are voted and hired by the public to fill public office, must do so in accordance with their campaign platform and the agenda of the people as prescribed by the people, not some lawyer firm ( PLAIN ENGLISH FOR THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND ).

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

Shen and Dave,

Shen, the problem is in how much of the old system we are able to shed .... or not. As long as we continue to hold on to the vestiges of the old system, it will continue to drag us down. Perhaps it is a refection of how far we have NOT evolved and that it is all representative of the human collective. I don’t have an answer to that one.

If anyone has seen “What the Bleep” and really gets into it, then one knows what the potential for human manifestation truly is, and when we are saddled with this “belief” that we can only choose between the lesser of two evils, well, that’s exactly what we get, the lesser of two evils.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Shenonymo0us, thank you for the compliment.
Archivesdave, with respect, I think your interpretation of events is wrong.

To ardee, I suggest you reread my comment once again, this time after laying aside your preconceived notion.
As I said, I do believe that Nader is a Liberal after my own heart.  But as I also said, the man cannot win election with his few followers. If he lost with, say, 19% of the popular vote (as Ross Perot did) and the Democrat won, he might exert a wee bit of influence. In 2000—his best showing umpteen campaigns for president—he won 2.74% of the vote.  Hardly enough to deserve even a mention in Congress.  But Nader’s 97,231 votes were taken directly from Democrat Al Gore’s votes.  And I remind you that Dubya topped Gore’s total by a mere 537 votes.

Believe me, I was paying attention; I listened to all of Nader’s speeches.  Not once did he utter a complete sentence condemning the Republican agenda. No, he reserved—he still reserves—all his criticism for the Democratic Party.  In my opinion, that hypocrisy is enough to place Ralph Nader in the same category as the undercover agents infiltrated into the KKK by the FBI back in the ‘60s.  To make it plainer, I, like another poster, wonder whether Nader is being paid by Kock brothers and Mellon-Scaife to undercut Democratic votes. 

Ardee, now that I have thoroughly raised your ire, please reread my original comments for a third time, and perhaps you’ll forgive me ire at the man many wise folk believe is directly responsible for twice electing a president who can’t read My Pet Goat without help with the big words.

You like the man Nader? Well, so do I.  So write him a letter, urge him to do as he has urged others to do, to start at the bottom…to run for mayor, senator, perhaps governor.  He cannot win the presidency. He can, however, help put Sarah Palin or Newt into the WH.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 17, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

Jesse Ventura’s latest interview:
http://www.youtube.com/v/OVTCJh092qY?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0

Report this

By archivesDave, October 17, 2010 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

BR549:
Ventura/Sanders would be a dream ticket on an Independent Ticket and I truly believe they could get
enough of a majority behind them to get in there and
make some serious progress toward turning this Titanic around.
In previous threads I’ve mentioned why I definitely
would not support Ron Paul but I do highly respect much of what he stands for.
If you do further comprehensive research on him, taking into account what Icke, Maxwell, Jones, and others divulge, (overtly and covertly), I think you will come up with the same conclusion.  I also highly recommend an hour or two watching Michael Ruppert but haven’t noticed his discussing Ron Paul much. If anyone knows how to get hold of him though,
am pretty sure he would support Ventura 100 percent.

I’d love to see Nader and both Paul’s throw their support to Jesse but their egos may be too enlarged
at this point.
If Ventura has a chance, it will be that all of us
begin to pressure TD and media from ALL sides to commence the serious discussion asap.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 17, 2010 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

R549, October 17 2:26 pm – Meaningfulness comes at a cost.  It
wouldn’t matter what other party invaded Washington, the Congress
is still intractable and a force to be dealt with.  Even though he sat
in Congress for a spell, I think Obama is overwhelmed by the
immovability of Congress that is drastically affected by the
Republican contingent who completely blocked any meaningful
legislation attempted by Obama and his Democrats in Congress.
Now meaningfulness means different things to the two sides of the
aisle. What happens as a result of Republican obstructionism is quite
meaningful to them. And horribly meaningful to the Democrats.  So it is
not a case of meaningfulness having gone AWOL.  What you are saying
in rather male vernacular is that the Democrats do not have strength in
their resolve to accomplish what they set out to do.  But it has to be
admitted that the Republicans, even in their smaller numbers can and
have affected every piece of legislation that has come to the floor and
have affected what actually arrives to the floor in the first place. To
forget that is to forget how the government works. You are not going
to overhaul the entire system. 

The other thing that struck me this a.m. from the news, is that Obama
still has dreams of a bi-partisan program. I think that is completely
delusional and all the signs are there for him to notice. It is a fine and
noble desire to have the two major factions work together since each
has their ideology that keeps each in check to not run amuck.  But
that notion has been eroded to the point of rational extinction.  It is
a huge error and cannot work in the climate that the rapacious
Republicans have caused.  It is incredibly naïve to think they can be
trusted to collaborate rather than strangle this country’s progress.

Yeah, I like Bernie Sanders too. I do not like Jesse Venture though.
He doesn’t vote anyway, so he said on TV the other day.  So he is also
an obstructionist and prone to demagoguery as far as I am concerned. 
At least Bernie does what is in his power to do and I admire him for
standing up to the big guns. He does side with Democrats as he is wise
and knows where his votes count.

There is no one in the pipeline that can carry Nader’s good ideas,
Kucinich’s good ideas, Anthony Weiner’s good ideas, Alan Grayson’s
good ideas gloriously forward.  Therefore, we must be even more
extremely careful and judicious where we put our votes so that the
Republicans cannot, do not, walk away and take us back to 1987
onward of politico-economic times.  We will definitely lose more
ground.  Wall Street wins, pharmaceuticals wins, foreign outsourced of
jobs win, education loses, Medicare loses, Social Security loses and the
jobless will lose even more jobs.  It is a defensive move I know, but that
is really all there is.  Fixing problems are always harder and take longer
time than what caused the problems.  It is my view that the Republicans
saw this in their crystal balls and counted on the Democrats struggling
to fix their financial swamp economics.  Knew their legacy would
strangle the Democrats and actually threw the election to Obama.  And
they knew they would throw every flat tire in his way to solving the
problems so that they would have a platform on which to criticize up
him up that wazoo.  There will be votes of protest I know but hopefully
not enough to give the election away as the Republicans are already
gleefully prancing in the streets envisioning they will receive on a silver
platter.  You must beware of the Republican shills on these threads that
would attempt to siphon off your votes in various ways so that they can
sashay right in and take over your government.

gary w, October 17 1:31pm -  what door have you been hiding
behind?!  You argue so well that you should do so more often.  Course
I am moved to say that because you represent my views fairly well.

Report this

By ardee, October 17, 2010 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

gary w, October 17 at 1:31 pm

I agree with Nader about the direction of the country.  I agree with Nader that the Democratic Party has not flexed the muscle of the disenfranchised of America.  However, if he is suggesting, as I think he is, that dissatisfied Democrats should vote for him, he is setting himself up to throw the 2012 election to the Republicans. Again.

Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

One question comes to mind reading about Nader:

Is he used to draw votes away from others?  To sway elections…. ON PURPOSE?


For Gary, so you agree with Nader in some part, but not with his opinion that neither major party fulfills its obligations to we the people. Thus you believe, as does the stridency of Napolean indicate as well, that our entire system of political elections is the private property of only two parties. That any independent who dares to run in opposition to that Duopoly must, perforce, be an agent of sinister forces designed to install one over the other of the two, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.

Considering that the last two years of democratic reign have simply continued the policies of the Bush administration in most respects I wonder what continuing to vote for a party that fails to uphold ones own views and opinions makes of that vote?

But there is a far deeper issue, one that I only touched upon, that of ones constitutional right to run for office, not just as a democrat or republican but as a flat earther if one so chooses, as well as a right to cast my vote for that candidate I determine to be the best one out there.

As for my own view, I believe that those who call Nader’s runs for office a sinister plot or a boon to the GOP insult those who thought Ralph Nader the best candidate, and his platform the best of the lot. Is my vote owned? Hell no it isnt. If the Democrats want my vote they can damn well earn it.

If either of you were knowledgeable about the Nader campaigns and the reasons for his running you might understand that he ran only because , should he have not done so, many progressive ideas and ideals would not have seen the light of day otherwise.

Before his foray into campaigning he went to both candidates ( GOP and Dem) and asked that they include certain planks in their platforms. Both refused thus Nader thought those planks important enough to put them out there himself. Thus Nader, in exercising his constitutional right to run for office was not acting as an agent for unscrupulous forces as the seemingly absurd post of Napolean suggests but acting as a concerned citizen of a free nation.

“Oh what fools these mortal be…..” ( My granddaughter just played Puck in her High School production of Midsummer Night’s Dream)

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 17, 2010 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

I like Sanders, but I’d rather see Ventura as the main figurehead, the person
who was speaking for the country. As I said, he may not be the most polished
head of state, but he would be the most honest.

Look who we’ve had in the past, Reagan was a figurehead who knew nothing
about politics and still didn’t by his last day in office. The powers that be used
his face to mesmerize the population. Bush the Elder was so politically savvy
that he put away any ethics or morality to further his own wealth. Clinton was a
shocker. Here was a guy who had all the training and the schmatz only to fall
victim to the dark side. His case was different because he knew better, he
promised the people more, and then he screwed everyone, and I’m not even
getting into his sexual history.

Then there was Bush the Idiot. Now here was a silver spoon baby who was a
total jerk-off in boarding school (Phillips-Exeter), so self centered and a social
ne’er-do-well that they had to make a position for him as cheerleader since
he’d been kicked off most of the teams he was on for punching or arguing.
Basically he just wanted everything HIS way. By the way, male New England
secondary schools didn’t have cheer leaders. If you were fit, you were in the
game; if you weren’t, you carried the ball bags and the clipboards and Georgie-
poo couldn’t be seen doing anything that mundane. The man was a sociopath.

Now if Bush the Idiot, a dingbat with no thought about anything other than
himself, can manage to pull eight years, why would discussing Jesse be
anything but a win?

As I said, Jesse has enough smarts to pull the right people in and his take
charge presence is really what this country needs. As much as I like Ron Paul, I
think Jesse would make a better president. At least when he went to state
dinners, the other heads of state would realize that this guy actually stands for
something, unlike that weasel we have in office at present ..... whom I voted
for, sorry to say.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s stance on abortion ...... at the moment, but I think he and I differ only in the timing. I am very much pro-choice, but only because until the government gets its head out of its ass and our way, and continues to disrupt family values, we will remain forced to make it a woman’s choice. Were our culture to have a higher set of moral values, perhaps we wouldn’t need the legislation because women would be making better choices for both them and the child. It’s a difficult dilemma, but I remain pro-choice. I could still support Ron Paul although we differ on that issue. I mean, ultimately, wouldn’t we all like to see a situation where abortion was legal but no abortions were needing to be performed?

Report this

By Paul B, October 17, 2010 at 11:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Does Hedges really believe that “he intent, design and function” of LABOR UNIONs he lists as among “institutions, controlled by corporate money, are to bolster the hierarchical and anti-democratic power of the corporate state.”? I’m sure many unions are undemocratic and certainly hierarchical with little rank & file participation, but independent unions like the IWW and UE are in fact democratic, and public employee unions aren’t exactly controlled by corporate money— unless you count wasting members’ money on Democrats in response to corporate spending on Republicans as a form of control. In the absence of a Labor Party or support for socialist parties, labor will continue its dysfunctional, ruinous relationship with the totally worthless Democrat Party.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 17, 2010 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

One question comes to mind reading about Nader:

Is he used to draw votes away from others?  To sway elections…. ON PURPOSE?

Where is the party that excludes the silver spooning of the grand ole party… and excludes the demanding of hand-outs by those propped up to be the ‘other choice.’

Where is there a party, where folks like Jesse Ventura can speak the truth and folks will listen and understand… where Nader and others who see the crimes and want to further the cause of the populous, the chattel ( no matter how high your wages or salary are, unless you owns the means of production and DO NOT have to do a thing to earn your bread… YOU TOO ARE INCLUDED )?

Who are the folks who are NOT of the patrician class and who actually give a snap about their livelihoods and of those around them?

Barrie Sanders seems to make A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE the times I’ve heard him.

Could we see Ventura / Sanders for 2012?

Or Sanders / Ventura?

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 17, 2010 at 10:26 am Link to this comment

If the Democratic Party had any cojones, it would have changed itself into some form of meaningful party. It, hasn’t, it won’t, and it can’t. It, like the Republican party, has become a vestige of a representative form of government that the representatives long ago lost their allegiance to. To think that theere is any hope in salvaging either one of them is like thinking that drugs or alcohol will make all our problems go away. Just like Hope and Change, it feels good for a short time ..... then reality sets in.

The precepts around which the Democrat Party was formed were noble, to be
sure, but there is nothing noble about what that party has become through
decades of corruption. The same can be said for the Republican Party. It, too,
was founded on a set of solid ideals that weren’t always centered around
wealthy landowners usurping more land and concentrating the wealth for a
few.

Either Party has the “potential” to dust itself off and turn this situation around,
but they won’t. As long as the name Democrat still exists, the old Blue Dogs
will still have their teeth sunk into whatever is left of this carcass, just like their
Republican cousins. As long as we still choose to align ourselves with either of
those party monikers, they will still see that nothing has changed, so why
should they.

They are all hoping and praying that enough voters will still keep trying to support
the two party system and that is exactly what will keep things from ever changing.
I thought that would have been obvious to everyone.

Report this

By gary w, October 17, 2010 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

I agree with Nader about the direction of the country.  I agree with Nader that the Democratic Party has not flexed the muscle of the disenfranchised of America.  However, if he is suggesting, as I think he is, that dissatisfied Democrats should vote for him, he is setting himself up to throw the 2012 election to the Republicans. Again.

Nader knows that he cannot win the WH, he knows that his running will split the Liberal vote from the Democrats, and by default hand it to the Republicans.  We do not have a parliamentarian system; in England it works, because in England campaigning is severely limited in scope—in money spent to convince the ignorant to vote against their own best interests.  And the people themselves do not vote for the prime minister. Instead, they vote for a party, which then forms coalitions of strong and weak, that throw bones to the lesser groups.

In the piece, Nader is quoted as saying that to achieve great things we must be willing to start at the bottom.  Well, then, why doesn’t he???  Why does he appear only every four years, just in time to whine that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans.

That is clearly not true.  The Democratic Party is not the answer to a Liberal’s wet dream.  However, we must remember that the Republican Party is America’s nightmare.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Nader could take the WH.  If he won with a 90% plurality, he’d still be a toothless lion sitting in the WH. Conservative Democrats and Republicans would join forces to cripple a Nader administration. I ask you: haven’t we endured enough gridlock in Washington?

Obama is not the man we all hoped he’d be.  But he has been far far far better than McCain would have been.

At the risk of pissing off my friends, I for one hope that Ralph Nader does the right thing for once, and this time, throws his support to the Democratic candidate.

== Gary W.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 17, 2010 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

I checked out your site democratz.  I pass on participating directly,
time is spread too thin as it is.  But if you were to take on where do
the Republican’s benefactors such as the US Chamber of Commerce
get their money, and other such so-called non-profits are getting
their money to fund the billions of dollars they are pumping into
the election at a rate of 6-7 dollars to 1 in comparison with the
Democrats, then I could be motivated to squeeze in something
even if limited. 

While I ‘fully’ support single-payer health care fully funded by our tax
dollars, and fully support ending the Republican slimy slithery strategy
of filibuster to obstruct any constructive legislation by Obama and the
Democratic Congress as well as effecting the other issues you specify,
and I will personally refuse to do business with those companies you
listed, I also think the election is a much more immediate and acute
crisis and that anyone who wishes to protect whatever progress was
made feeble as it was it was still some progress, from the 19 out of 23
years Washington was controlled by Republicans by Democrat efforts,
they need to get out to vote for the candidate who would prevent a
relapse into that pig-shit filled crevasse of Republican self-indulgence
that cares nothing for the American people, that faceless assortment
who does all the work and gets only a kick in the ass by the wealthy
and corporate powerhouses.  All effort must be put into that goal in the
next few weeks to make that a reality on November 2.  No, don’t pity
the Democrats.  Pity yourself.

Report this

By boilinabag, October 17, 2010 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

dont matter what anyone does anymore.  the oligarchs own the congress completely, and now with the citizen’s united decision by the corporately owned scotus, they will buy elections.  every year in sun valley the billionaire boys club meets to get their plans together.  you know that fox’ murdoch and GE’s immelt and the rest of the uber rich, hang out. there are no more political party’s, just one holistic form of money flow from each other…..  get it mr. beale????

Report this
democratz.org's avatar

By democratz.org, October 2, 2010 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

You can help wipe out the power that conservatives in both parties hold in congress. Go see

http://DEMOCRATZ.ORG and send legislative demands, not to the conservatives directly but to their donors who give them money and also sell products which you can boycott. Silent boycotts do not work, so send those emails. Spread the word.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 2, 2010 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

From what I’ve seen of Bernie Sanders, he would be very acceptable
as a candidate.  I would not support Ron Paul.  I’ve been down that
path before and would vigorously campaign against him. Unequivo-
cally I am a pro-choicer and I do not like Paul’s attitude towards
women.  Period.

I am not interested in changing my party affiliation, which is as a
life-long Democrat.  I am interested in changing the economic
system this country currently follows.  I am for a mixed economic
system along the lines of socialized capitalism which heavily weighs in
on collective action that does not completely negate capitalism.  Part of
Sanders’ career as a mayor was to create the first community-trust
housing program in the country.  I suggest that the Wiki entry at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_land_trust be read for more
information.  There are now over 250 such community land trusts in
the US.  Also the Wiki bio on Sanders gives a rundown of his career.  I
particularly like the “Early political career” section.  As a representative,
he was supported 100% by the major labor union.  I support labor
unions.  Furthermore, as a Democrat, I appreciate his endorsement of
every Democratic nominee for POTUS since 1992.  So speaking of
needing a candidate who could attract both Independents, socialist
minded ones at least, and Democrats, Sanders could well be the guy.  I
am further impressed by his action regarding the Iraq invasion, and his
stand on the Valerie Plame scandal.  His thinking on universal health
care is an issue that gives me confidence, generally, in his points of
view.  There is too much to bring up here about his Senate record so I
recommend again a read of his bio on Wiki an surprised no one else
has already done that.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders 
He describes himself as a democratic socialist, which is defined as
emphasizing the democratic character of their socialist political
orientation.  I don’t know if I would be in agreement with everything he
supported but I’m willing to be flexible upon rational arguments.  I
know one thing, I am going to reread his biography a few times so I
can get to know him better.  If he doesn’t become the candidate, by the
first look at him, he could become the measure by which to compare
others.

I like Weiner of New York, he is a firebrand, but I don’t see him as
a president.  Grayson appears to have backbone but he does say
some odd things at times that also gives me reticence to see him as
presidential material.  Seems like “a new action party” designed or the
Democratic Party redesigned so that in reality it fits the needs of the
people is an imperative.  I see that what has happened to the
Republican Party with the Teabaggers is a dynamic that needs to
happen with the Democrats. I don’t know if that is possible given the
lack of cohesion among Democrats that has been its history and it
takes some kind of political earthquake to get their combined asses in
gear.  While I am greatly disaffected by the Democratic politicians and
the lethargic actions of the Party, I believe in its “liberal” positions in the
sense of social liberalism and its usual center-left attitude.  I appreciate
their socially progressive program, its positon on social freedoms,
affirmative action, balanced budgets, and a free enterprise system
controlled by government intervention and regulation.  I firmly believe
that it is necessary for government to play a role in mitigating poverty
and social injustice and use a system of progressive taxation to
eliminate the power the rich and corporate powerful currently use to
take advantage of the public.

Report this

By archivesDave, October 2, 2010 at 3:21 am Link to this comment

Napolean:
“Could someone define please-

“Save the infant, but allow him to live in hell with Satan for a father…”

Define as far as (a) who makes the argument to whom and ( b) who is paving themselves to hell, the abortionist and / or the baby?”

I’ve never heard it before and it makes absolutely
NO sense at all from a Biblical perspective. If anyone knows anything different, I’d also like to know.

Maybe it’s possible someone could be loosely referencing 2 Samuel Chapt 12… After David’s infant son dies he declares, “I shall go to him, he will not return to me.”
From a non believer’s view, this could hint that David, due to his murderous action in killing Uriah and thus God’s judgment in killing his son, was headed to Hell and would see his son there as well.

But if one reads the entire book of Samuel in context, it commands just the opposite.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 2, 2010 at 1:18 am Link to this comment

Regarding Bernie Sanders, I haven’t heard anything out of norm or ‘red flag’ type he’s said in the bit that I’ve heard of him.

I don’t know his voting record too well nor his other perceptions about things.

I like Ron Paul’s perception on the banks… yet we all have our shortcomings and NO ONE MAN or candidate or party or whatever movement is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL thing.

Seen lots of good stuff about Ron, wonder why he hasn’t outgrown his seat and why’s he’s been there so long, chirping the same tune and now we have another generation and still even more obscurity…. is he an example of a last stronghold of American ‘pull yourself up by the boot straps’ image type or the Amerikan ‘get others to pull your boot straps up for ya, dummy’ type?

Even our best efforts here, even if narrowed down to only 2 ( two ) friendly chaps…. well, you’ll still have two STARK world view points differentiated by experience and upbringing even if those too really kiss each others’ _____ in every topic, discussion, whatever… still two worlds exist even if one is puppet or both are blind, etc.

Guess I’d like to shed a broad blanket at first, with a broad scope and some core and basic stances on things…. fixtures if you will…. and timely further the aim with clearer concepts coupled with balanced compromises well founded on true ‘consideration’ NOT the financial type of consideration.

Guess I’m conceptualizing capturing the tea party ‘fire’ and that ‘outlet’ for those who really desire to have their country run with professional standards you’d expect if it was a business you’d frequent or you ran!

Would like to attract them to sounder aims and more reputable people leading and speaking for them…

Same with libertarians, liver and onions, sabians, lutherans, and on and on… start at core issues that expand further into the non-benefit of wanting benefits from big government and the REAL benefit of creating self employed, self sustained and self supported communities whose medium of exchange is based on their community’s, municipalities, region’s, state’s etc… value… a currency which cannot be manipulated at will and against people’s will with ill results and no one(s) to hold accountable.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 2, 2010 at 12:57 am Link to this comment

I like the idea of a pre-approved candidates list… and that will be apparent as we separate the chaff from the wheat by tracking and researching the Money to Voting Metric.

So let’s list these folks who want to work for the federal government ( our federalis ) and field them for the positions they desire, shall we?

If the chumpsters at the top want to fulfill their fantasy of having their government positions filled by rented and bought hired guns… lets further that ill-intention and spin it in our favor with certain irrevocable precepts and criteria.. these positions should be filled UNDER PUBLIC scrutiny since these are PUBLIC OFFICES, and so we’ll vet them and hire AND fire them swiftly via internet registered ip address vote for recall vote, immediate impeachment, or whatever… MAJOR SCRUTINY… this may really ‘weed’ out the dubious.

Have senators and representatives read out constituent email, have an Interactive Medium with your public servant via i.m. and video conferencing…. ( bringing ‘main street’ to ‘wall street’/congress/pyramid machine/insert yours here ______ ... as the ‘one or the other’ decision hopefully will break into a choice between four or five ).

I like that you mention the inner turmoil regarding choice outside one’s sphere of personal influence in the abortion issue. 

I wrote a little rant and minor attempt at a politico poetic discourse on abortion at this TD thread- 

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/atheists_know_more_about_religion_than_religious_people_20100928/#357534

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 1, 2010 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment

Could someone define please-

“Save the infant, but allow him to live in hell with Satan for a father; that argument.”

Define as far as (a) who makes the argument to whom and ( b) who is paving themselves to hell, the abortionist and / or the baby?

Thanks

Report this

By archivesDave, October 1, 2010 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment

BR, Napolean et al:
What r your thoughts about Bernie Sander?  He makes
a lot of sense on Thom Hartmann.
I would not trust ANYONE at this point in the Teaparty unless thoroughly vetted which is pretty difficult with all the Citizen United and Dick Armey covert funding coming out of the woodwork.

Ron Paul talks a great line but ultimately he’s a dyed in the wool LIBERTARIAN/FREEMASON!!!!!

You know we can’t do this by ourselves so sooner or later we will HAVE to hook up with some organization that has similar goals and interests…

Any suggestions/recommendations?

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, October 1, 2010 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

Napoleon,
Are you suggesting that we begin a list of pre-approved candidates? If that is
where you’re going, that’d be one good start to help the voters (ourselves,
really).

My only suggestion might be that we need to have a consensus, somewhat,
about how we would gauge the candidates. Some people are strong pro-life
supporters, which I philosophically believe in, but NOT while our government
itself is so hypocritical on the issue. Save the infant, but allow him to live in
hell with Satan for a father; that argument. So, I personally might believe that
we need to be pro-choice at the moment, but I can easily support someone
like Ron Paul, who is Pro-life. His caliber is far more beneficial to the country
than my personal belief in that single issue.

There may be other candidates that come onto the election horizon so I’ll just
throw a couple names out there to start with; names I’ve heard some good
things about. Metcalf in Pennsylvania, DeFazio in Oregon, Grayson in Florida,
how do people feel about their performance levels?

I’ll tell you that in Rhode Island, we have two party bobbleheads for senators.
Nothing new, they’re just part of the problem. In CT, Rosa Delauro had tried to
insert language that would address the “known hazards of subsistence and
recreational farming”, which means that you’d need an inspection and a permit
to grow tomatoes in your back yard. Yes, these politicians are that far out of
touch.

Russ Feingold WI removed the word “Navigable” from the phrase “Navigable
Waters”, which then shifted control of creeks and agricultural ponds from state
to federal control. Many people have supposedly liked Feingold in the past, but I
guess he’s not so well liked this time around.

How would we categorize legislators who support a number of good bills but
then continue to support the Patriot Act? I would suppose that if someone
started a website to assess the true value of the candidates, and the list went
viral, some disgruntled group of Blue Dogs or NeoCons would be hiring
Diebold or some group to hack into it to change the data. That’s how these
people work. As actor Ned Beatty said, playing the part of Senator Meachum in
the movie, ‘Shooter’, “The truth is what I say it is.”

Anyone else have some thoughts on this? The bottom line, I believe, should be their record in supporting the Constitution, a concept that is sadly lacking, sorry to say.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, October 1, 2010 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

I propose we start with a list of who’s in congress right now starting with our collective state reps and senators…

And if we can find a list where their campaign money and contributions stem from…

And their voting record…

And their discourse and what their rhetoric ( if any ) is and if they’ve back peddled on any of their vows / promises / platforms.

An aside, considering the need for allot of money to compete on the airwaves and such in campaigns… for exposure of a candidate and to reach the largest demographic possible, can the Koch movement with the tea party be completely ruled out, at least the attempt of a third party or semblance to more constituent control of representatives?

I like that- Constituent Control ( maybe we should find a clean definition of this one and apply it, any idears? ).

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, October 1, 2010 at 4:55 am Link to this comment

Don’t have time today but will be back this evening.  It looks like
there is plenty of agreement to go around.  I’ll be interested to see
what constructive ideas are proposed.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, October 1, 2010 at 4:06 am Link to this comment

Leefeller:

That’s just half the list.

Where are the 10 BAD qualities of politicians?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 30, 2010 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment

Lets see, ten necessary abilities necessary to be successful in political office. 

So potential politicians should to be able to;

1.  be full of themselves.

2   love the smell of money.

3.  gut a moose while at the same time delivering a baby on their front porch,  while they can see Russia. 

3. Watch Fox news with out need of a barf bag.

4.  to be a hero in their own mind but not necessarily anyones else’s, this ties in with question one!

5.  lie whenever it is not necessary, to be ready when it is.

6.  make sure integrity never enters the room.

7.  make sure accountability is right next to integrity.

8.  use hypocrisy with the ease of a Catholic Pope

9. read a book at least once and maybe look at the pictures in a few magazines at the doctors office.

10 be an opportunist with the qualities of a cockroach and just as smart.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 30, 2010 at 9:21 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt, October 1 at 12:40 am Link to this comment
“Ironically usually the best person for the job is the least inclined to do it.”

I might have said that the best person for the job is usually the first to realize that if he had his head on straight, he’d do something else; at least with respect to politics, but I got your point.

I say all this because politics as we know it has basically turned into a mafia operation and it’s more about what happens under the table than on top of it. It doesn’t have to be that way.

So, while all these politicians are ruffling their feathers and thinking that they have to address some perceived threat by terrorists or anarchists from within, what is really happening is that the people are just pissed that these assholes are doing such a deplorable job. The average citizen doesn’t mind paying taxes, or serving their country; they don’t even mind being governed, but they just don’t like being robbed and lied to. And yet these pompous stuffed shirts are all ready to twist this all around to make it seem like everyone hates the government. NO, people don’t hate being governed; they only hate being governed irresponsibly and by people who do a shitty job of it.

Report this

By archivesDave, September 30, 2010 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

N-G, BR, NDHP, Shen, elisalouisa, Leefeller, et al:
I think we’re all basically headed on a constructive course.
ONe thought that comes to mind tho as most seem to
concur on the common arch enemy of Elitist Corporatists: Sometimes we have a tendency to focus perhaps too much on the ‘problem’ (including myself)....
Reminds me of someone riding a bike coming upon a big
rut in the road.  If he tarries too long with his focus on the problem instead of ways around it,he’ll crash for sure.
I appreciate Shen and others when they discuss solutions no matter how idealist.
btw, I highly recommend Napolean DoneHisPart’s website:
http://smartpeoplesmartmoney.com
for those who haven’t perused it.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 30, 2010 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

The last time I met a person that I clicked with she was married! Such a downer for me but that is the way the world is.

The question is how do we get quality people of the type of politics we need to run? Who would want that job? Ironically usually the best person for the job is the least inclined to do it.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 30, 2010 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

Dave,
For some reason I just felt compelled to remind everyone of that larger sense of purpose. Shen has made many wonderful contributions here, which I publicly acknowledge.

You both still have a thumbs up in my book.

As for the tin-foil hat stuff, I’ve been used to that for a while; particularly with my family, yet they are now finding that they would have been far better off if they had followed my advice from six or seven years ago.

I’ve also had a higher percentage of failed dates as a result. Most of them are unfortunately looking for some Prince Charming to take care of them, not a partner in what may soon be a massive survival experiment. I can’t really blame them, but I don’t have time to babysit.

I did find one incredible woman who unfortunately lives too far away for an ongoing meaningful relationship. If I started a sentence on any topic about what other people can only describe as ‘conspiracies’, she could step right in and finish the sentence for me, and vice versa. They weren’t all conspiracies, some were, but a concatenation of decisions and events that other people hadn’t figured out their relationship yet.

Anyway, geography and economics being what they were, we are having to choose to just stay as friends. Sigh.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 30, 2010 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

I second or third the motion to keep from attacking one another, at least personally, but lets use our combined knowledge, experience and backgrounds as STRENGTHS to forward our cause of… what? 

Honest politicians in the driver’s seat?

And about my thoughts on the real Napoleon… I thought it noble his ‘intention’ prior to losing his mind and getting married into royalty and making himself a stinkin’ ‘emperor’ - which was his downfall…. like so many others before and after him…

He ‘became’ the very thing he was opposing… unfortunately.

We can’t let that happen to us / this / our intentions to remove hierarchy, corporatism, hegemony, aristocracy, whatever THEY are, which are not for US.

Report this

By archivesDave, September 30, 2010 at 4:25 pm Link to this comment

BR549:
I think u may be misinterpreting me.
I also compliment most on this site/thread for some
extremely astute comments and that certainly includes
Shen. 
We’re all like the blind men trying to describe the
elephant in the room and no one has a corner on ‘the whole truth’.
Sometimes we take each other’s criticism too seriously or personally IMO. And we do need a little more levity among us to lighten the load.
All that being said, we do have to come together to
recognize who our common enemy truly is.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 30, 2010 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

ArchivesDave,

I’ve stated this before and I’ll state it again, we all have to realize how much we
have in common so that we don’t wind up getting sucked into quarreling with
each other over petty differences in opinion.

There is so much talent here, as I think Shen has alluded to in the past. While I
may not be standing on a soapbox in the pouring rain, what is happening to this
country today is something that I try to educate as many people as I can about,
each and every day.

Report this

By archivesDave, September 30, 2010 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

BR549:
VERY well said!!!
Let’s just give Shenonymous a little more time to digest some of Dr Nicholas Hagger and Michael Ruppert.

Shen, u’re gonna have to read Hagger tho since there’re no little concise youtube clips as from Alex Jones et al.
Ooops…I just spilled some of my Kool Aide on my Reynolds Hat I took off to scratch my head.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 30, 2010 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

As I said, “One person accuses another of wearing a tin-foil hat, while the second
person accuses the first of drinking copious amounts of Kool-Aid.”

I have no idea what is true about man landing on the moon. It always sounded
well within our technological capabilities, so I never questioned it. I don’t concern
myself with little green men and the apocalypse, just trends that seem to keep
popping up around avoiding the truth; Depleted Uranium being one of them.

BTW, what flavor are you drinking today?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

And absence of evidence of insanity is not evidence of absence of
insanity.  Sometime the crazies give the appearance of being very
sane, remember Jack Nicholson’s Cuckoo’s Nest. How funny. 

Oh come on!  ”…that have since proven themselves to have been
true…  ”
And how many have never proven themselves to be true? 
Oh, but they might be!!!   Like the moon isn’t made of green
cheese?  I mean the astronauts only visited one small acre for mankind! 
And the landrover didn’t cover the entire moon!  I think there is a cave
on the dark side that is just filled with Stiltson.  LOL.  Like every word
of the Bible is veritable truth, oh yeah.  All are straw men arguments
even mine about the moon and the Bible. 

Keep your Reynolds hats on guys!  Yeah, such is life and so it goes. 
Thank you Kurt Vonnegut… again.  Twice in one day is a pretty good
tally.  Kurt whispered in my ear this morning.  He said, “The insane, on
occasion, are not without their charms.”

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment

Absence of evidence of a conspiracy is not evidence of absence of a conspiracy.

Or, put another way, how many issues, that were once considered political heresy
and that have since proven themselves to have been true, does it take for people
to realize the amount of deception? The History Channel has now discussed the
sinking of the USS Maine as having been a possible false flag event, McNamara
has admitted that Tonkin really didn’t happen, and the BBC pulls its file where it
admitted WTC7 had fallen 20 minutes before it went down.

One person accuses another of wearing a tin-foil hat, while the second person
accuses the first of drinking copious amounts of Kool-Aid. Such is life.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, September 30, 2010 at 10:19 am Link to this comment

The reality is that those higher ups are here to stay, learn to live with
that fact. By the way, Napoleon Bonaparte did lose to Wellington and
in the end the war.  In the final analysis, what exactly was the
net gain for the French to have had Napoleon as their Emperor?

” the corporate policy to keep the chattel from atrophy? “ well
yeah, but better than having them sit there like the massas of
sweatshops!  Perhaps you should not be so cynical.  You know that
exercise whether it is commanded from on high, is better for the body. 
Perhaps you do not exercise?  Yeah, humans do get into the slave
bondage predicament and dance to the tune of the masters who have
the means to harm.  It is a condition not modern, but goes back long
before the Egyptians, actually to when humankind developed the
agricultural economy and appeared among the nomadic Arabs as well
as Native American cultures.  See The Columbia Electronic Encyclopeida
for starters. But we don’t want to get into the history of slavery here do
we?  I do have lots of information on it though should a forum on it
come up.

It would indeed seem most beneficial for humanity to avoid killing
itself.  Sociologists do try to find ways, don’t they?  Certainly politicians
don’t.  Seems like some current megamillionaires are trying to put their
gigantic funds to some good altruistic use. 

Night-Gaunt, I was finally able to read the Wiki on Mondragon and it is
amazing.  I wonder how it gets along with the Spanish government and
the rest of Spain?  Spain is essentially a different kind of country than
America, but the essence of Mondragon ought to work here on a local
level.  Actually there are many many cooperatives to be seen if one just
googled cooperatives in America, an amazing list is given on many
websites.  For instance the Berea College in Kentucky charges no
tuition, and the sale of the student-made crafts featured here provides
scholarships for Berea students.  The Grange, an agricultural coop was
established in 1867 to organize stores to serve the local yokels!  No
insult intended.  The site listed is a summary of cooperatives in the US
with a dash of history thrown in.
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir55/cir55rpt.htm  and the Wiki
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cooperatives
given a list of cooperatives world wide!  There is much social capitals to
be generated.  It is easily seen that people can work together for a
common cause.

If you mean the Trilateral Commission or TLC, there is a real need to do
some research instead of perpetrating conspiracy theories.  The New
World Order NWC is not as it is represented on these threads.  For if it
is, please provide references for the claims that “it is just such a cancer
that totally fails to see the best of humankind and sets a standard of
greed and distrust.”  Lots of bombast there.  Be sure to look under your
bed at night, and tell your children too! See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 30, 2010 at 10:02 am Link to this comment

Re:  archivesDave, September 30 at 3:20 am

I’ll buy that, about Cronkite, I mean, although he at least gave the “appearance” of responsible journalism. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. At least while all this nefarious behavior was going on in the background, most people thought that the American way of life (whatever that means) was good and safe. Now, unfortunately, we are finding out what happens to a business that suffers from poor management and a total lack of constructive forward thinking. As I’ve said before, the globalists couldn’t manage a successful lemonade stand and yet they see anyone who does have any potential as a threat.

To use that analogy a bit further, to a short-sighted dollar driven Board of
Directors, it might seem that the only issue is corporate profitability, not once
ever thinking that the corporation was toxically dooming the very culture it had been
parasitizing for decades. It’s like a cancer; so consumed with its own survival
that it eventually destroys the very environment that allowed it to grow.

The NWO is just such a cancer. It totally fails to see the best of humankind and
instead sets a standard of greed and distrust that only elevates the stress levels
of all those it has influence over. The result, then, is the collective lowering of
human potential to unconsciously down-regulate the population on its own or
at least have the topic of population stability be something for intelligent
family dinner discussion.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 30, 2010 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

It sounds lovely and is cozy think these higher-ups want the very best for ALL of mankind, and that they’ll be generous with us when they have FULL control of food, resources and travel, etc…

“In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.”

- Napoleon Bonaparte

Report this

By archivesDave, September 29, 2010 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment

BR 549
Re Walter Cronkite:
If u do a little gumshoeing, you will find that he made several overt and covert comments during his career about his profound interest and belief in a
global govt as the only answer to saving humankind from eventually destroying itself.
He was absolutely a puppet of the the Rothschild/ Tavistock/BIS/Rockefeller/JP Morgan Cabal and I’m certain he was fully aware of our nefarious involvement in the funding/founding of such incidents as the Gulf of Ton-quin, Sinking of the Maine, WW One, Communist Revolution, WW Two, etc, etc, ad nausea.

Report this

By archivesDave, September 29, 2010 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment

N-Gaunt:
Re Lawrence Baker, go to Robt Scheer’s Column entitled ‘Rape and Spillage’...
Go to pages 2 and 3 (June and July threads); You’ll see quite a few of his sage comments and links there.

Some of the discussion revolved around Matt Simmons who was,(he died of questionable mysterious causes), considered somewhat of an ‘expert’(whistleblower?), by many.

BR549:
Perhaps u’d like to add to all of this since you had a lot of excellent comments in there as well.

Report this
BR549's avatar

By BR549, September 29, 2010 at 3:01 pm Link to this comment

Re:  archivesDave, September 29 at 2:52 am

Relative to Icke, Maxwell, and even Jones for that matter, the whole concept of journalism has been tossed on its ass. While I think Walter Cronkite did a great job during his reign, he either didn’t explore the Gulf of Tonkin incident enough or he knew about it and was throttled by the government. Either way, the people of both countries were the ones who lost out.

I wouldn’t just summarily throw Icke and Maxwell, or Savage, Jones, and all of
them to the wind just yet. Somewhere among all the hype is a far more
accurate rendition of the truth than in the MSM. We should be encouraging
these guys to all get on the same page, not beating the crap out of them for
their journalistic deviance or their rants. We have too much at stake here to get
suckered in to quarreling amongst ourselves.

======================

NightGaunt, we’ve had a few words in the past, but I think we have far more in common than not. I really liked your response at September 29 at 6:18 pm. It really emphasizes my philosophy on the situation. Just because we have the ability to use all these resources doesn’t give us, as fellow members of an ecosphere we share with thousands of other species, the right to use them unwisely or even at all.

To quote Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park, “Yeah, but your scientists were so
preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they
should.” (Love that line.)

Once we crossed that boundary, we automatically assumed a responsibility of
stewardship over this planet ..... and so far we are getting an “F”.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 29, 2010 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

archivesDave, which Lawrence Baker do you mean? How about at least one web site? Too many to choose from right now.

As I have said before “abiotic oil” whether ultimately real or not it doesn’t change the fact that if we don’t stop producing the high levels of CO2 (and other stronger GCC gases) we are doomed anyway.* So wake up to the fact that we need to get off of petrochemical energy pronto. We are at least 40 years behind right now and counting.

“None-of-the-above” is one of the ways we can start to limit having to vote between two criminals. Another is public funding to end the money monopoly of our paid for criminals to be promoted as product. A third is opening up the other parties to have more real choices through direct competition. If we don’t break the contorl of the mega-corporations we will get more of the same and worse as the Republicans say what they are gong to do to us as their corporate masters will.

* The Permian Period (290 million - 248 million years ago) Ultimately a runaway greenhouse effect and destruction caused by active vulcanism produce a hot, dry temps and growing desertification. When the Tethis ocean got too hot the sulfur dioxide excreting bacteria in the deep oceans found the heating oceans perfect for their expansion out of their niches to fill the ocean with sulfuric acid which killed off most life there. We stupidly run that same risk now.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 29, 2010 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

Have you begun your Economic Revolution to escape your Economic Slavery?

The Fiscal War has been waged against you and your family for too long… time to defend yourself and ‘fight’ wisely.

http://SmartPeopleSmartMoney.com

Read, click, listen, watch and learn…. and DO.

Report this

By archivesDave, September 28, 2010 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

N-G:
Lawrence Baker, had much to say about the B.S. of the Corporatist oil industry in T.D.‘s “Rape And Spillage”..
Perhaps u should review some of his brilliant research and comments there. 
Also do a little research on ‘abiotic oil’ which L.B. also discusses….pretty eye opening!
We always have to keep an open (skeptical/cynical) mind on all of this since we don’t really know who the ‘good guys’ are….Many of them throw us many morsels of ‘truth’ with a smattering of BS sprinkled in.
Icke and Jordan Maxwell are good examples of that.
I used to cross these guys off if they made a comment I knew was false but have grown a little past that now.
Like they say in AA, “take what u want/need and leave the rest”...

Re Govt/Corporatists, have u seen any of Michael Ruppert’s clips on youtube?  Wow!!!!!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 28, 2010 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

As I said the easy oil is gone or nearly so. I don’t know what scientists who have been talking to, but even if there is more it is much deeper, needs more processing and cost more to get out. And then there is still the problem of GCC much of it due to using oil and coal, to a lesser extent natural gas (mainly methane) which also contributes to our climate mess.

We need to keep it in the earth. Carbon sequestering has been done with it naturally. Humanity is releasing carbon dioxide that has been sequestered for 100’s of millions of years that has been being released for the past 300 years. No wonder we have been have such drastic climatic changes over the past 50 years. We need to stop now and in fact start pulling the CO2 out of the air as soon as possible before the oceans heat too hot to keep what it has absorbed in.

Report this

By archivesDave, September 27, 2010 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt:
“What he wants to do by the use of force, Kunstler says is going to happen de facto of we continue being dependent on oil and coal. Mostly oil will run out, only the more expensive to dig and pump out crude that needs more refining will be left. All the easy “sweet” crude is mostly used up. Either way billions will die before that is over and prematurely. Not a good scenario. Not one I would support or let free to damage the earth more with its anti-intellectualism, anti-invention & anti-humanist ideology.”

Have had some dialog with Kunstler but IMO (and a growning # of scientists and researchers), oil is
NOT at peak in the least.  There is mounting evidence
there are VAST pools or oceans of oil below the 30K
level.  Also enuf gas and coal to last the earth for
several centuries. 
Just another bold faced lie perpetrated by the globalist ilk of (Rhodes) DeBeers who want to convince us that diamonds are very rare.

All of that said, I agree with your basic thesis
and we all need to take every necessary measure to
buy as locally (co-0ps) as possible, reduce our carbon footprints, etc.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, September 27, 2010 at 1:53 pm Link to this comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Would the Mondragon cooperatives of the Basque region of Spain fit what you are saying at all Shenonymous?

Everyone who uses specie (money) use capital which is in place of selling directly one’s abilities or property in exchange (barter.) So what particular kind of Capitalism are we talking about? For too many “capitalism” means only one thing. I have hopes that this discussion of “socialized capitalism” will break that line of thought.

It is also true that the way we live our lives can affect our minds and bodies as we see today with the younger generations finding their electronic devices to be literally part of their bodies and minds. (Later they may be implanted to directly interface in that way, maybe.)

I am thinking of creating a blog site just for the purpose of dialogue and instruction about how to effect this social change beyond the exercise of government, and I want to stress, without any militaristic anarchic action. But through rational and sane steps towards self-determination by the people of our society. Shenonymous

I would agree. The dangers of totalitarianism (of many kinds) from either a slow takeover of our Republic or violence making it happen that much quicker is a danger. We must not succumb to the lure of a quick fix either. They usually aren’t well thought out or sturdy enough to last.

American philosopher John Zerzan’s thesis is simple: civilization is pathological, and needs to be dismantled. Zerzan’s radical critique of civilization, laid out in books such as Elements Of Refusal (1988), Future Primitive (1994), and Running On Emptiness (2002) draws on anthropological research to argue that domestication of nature and domestication of humans go hand in hand. And this is accomplished primarily through technology. According to him, the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers’ Matrix trilogy is already here: the technological-industrial ‘machine’ is already running the world, a world where individual humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human being - neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman - has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable logic of what has been unleashed. He believes that the climate change summit in Copenhagen is a joke, and environmentalists are too superficial in their critiques to make a difference. In an exclusive interview, the California-based* Zerzan, who was in Mumbai recently for a lecture tour, talks about why going back to the primitivism of the Stone Age is the only meaningful ‘green’ alternative.

What he wants to do by the use of force, Kunstler says is going to happen de facto of we continue being dependent on oil and coal. Mostly oil will run out, only the more expensive to dig and pump out crude that needs more refining will be left. All the easy “sweet” crude is mostly used up. Either way billions will die before that is over and prematurely. Not a good scenario. Not one I would support or let free to damage the earth more with its anti-intellectualism, anti-invention & anti-humanist ideology.

Considering that the “Matrix” trilogy concerns the machines taking over and using the humans as energy sources, I suppose it plays to Zerzan‘s anti-technological bend in his philosophy. Maybe he should have used “Soilent Green” as a closer one since it entails overpopulation, food shortages, GCC & the over harvested and dying oceans. This one might be a better analogy to our own present trends. I just find him and any who go along with it to be dangerous. Now living more simply I see as a good idea, using less resources, less pollution is good for the earth. But it is very hard for the rest of us to do it. Especially in these Depression Era times.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 27, 2010 at 9:47 am Link to this comment

We can go read this weeks Hedges article, another marathon “we” fest and then drink some Tequila while singing old sailors ditties!

Report this

By elisalouisa, September 27, 2010 at 9:31 am Link to this comment

Second definition of the word “we” in Apple dictionary:

we |w?|
pronoun [ first person plural ]
1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 used by a writer or editor, to refer to himself or herself : in this section we discuss the reasons.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 27, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Some folks need someone like this to stick up for them..

http://www.break.com/index/bully-gets-cracked-with-baseball-bat.html

Report this

By radson, September 27, 2010 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Hello Shen

It took you a while to get started ,but started you have ,oh yes Lazarus is still among us and there are more Trojan Horses then you can shake a stick at.Socialized Capitalism is an interesting concept ,however
the term Social may prove to be a hindrance in promoting the idea.The Corporate Ideologues and their conflict with anything Socialist is only a smoke screen for public consumption ,in order to maintain their
hegemony,hence the cold war and all the rhetoric with regards to Socialism and the false comparisons with the Soviet model,which in itself was a top down totalitarian state ,ruled in essence by the ‘club’.Social
Capitalism is not a continuation of Serfdom ,it is better described as an emancipation of the masses ,which by the way has been promulgated many times throughout history ,yet the so called Status Quo has
always remained.

SC will promote a more balanced existence of the members in the communities with -which I highly endorse -a equitable balance with nature and the environment ,in order to sustain an equilibrium of self-sufficiency.The balance between the communities and our living arrangement with ‘Mother Earth’ must be ‘le raison d’être ’ of this endeavor ,for without the balance ,the journey towards the proverbial cliff will
remain the same ,by the way that’s where the corporatists are heading -we don’t have to follow them-.

Since this concept requires a bottom up approach ,the grassroots movements must become fundamental in its design and proliferation ,where individual wealth is not the predominate goal ,but the wealth and the
health of the community in its stead.Each community would be required to asses its own situation ,but certain basic common denominators must be put into perspective ,such as ;what drives the local economy ,
local food supplies ,clean drinking water ,education ,health-care facilities ;having said that ,how could the unemployed be employed within their communities in order to render themselves as self-sufficient as
possible ‘outsourcing’ in order to maximize profits would not be a prerequisite.

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 27, 2010 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

Thanks Leefeller, I get carried away and broad stroke everything sometimes, my apologies… good point.

So with that said…. what are WE going to do?

8^)

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 27, 2010 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Napolean DoneHisPart

Watch the we stuff! ......Assumptions can take we down the wrong road!

Many posters seem to like to use the collective we (Hedges bathes in using the word we). Plus She just wrote about the excessive use of “we” in the video….... (we, happens to be one of my many pet peeves) so we should be aware of we, for we may not include you or me together as we!

I may be aware of what one is writing about, but when we is used the apparent assumption is one did not know about something?  Assuming may be like constructing a foundation on most shaky ground!

After one of Hedges frequent “we” marathons I asked him; if he had a frog in his pocket?

What the hell do we know anyway?

Report this
Napolean DoneHisPart's avatar

By Napolean DoneHisPart, September 27, 2010 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous, yeah Zerzan is a bit on a limb, yet the basis of his argument is spot on I think! 

We have been ‘programmed’ and ‘conditioned’ to consume to reach the ‘comfortable’ lifestyle you mentioned and we all desire… guess where we even received a notion of the comforts of modern living to begin with? 

The BOOBTUBE AND RADIO… It is being SOLD TO US DAILY… and nothing can convince us otherwise, not even war, economy or ill health, think about that one.

Yes I agree, destroying property AND marching to demonstrate only does so much and may actually turn away people and be unfruitful… a mob is a mob… what was the approach of Christ?  Changing from the inside… it is a heart condition we all have.

The scenes of folks exercising in their offices…

Doesn’t that strike you as the corporate policy to keep the chattel from atrophy?  A bare minimum to satisfy the managers and handlers of chattel ( unions ). 

You think those clips of workers from around the world in different epochs is THEIR OWN WILL of taking a break and stretching out at the work place / their daily labor stall?

PLEASE DON’T BE SO NAIVE.

The view from the heights is that WE, the chattel or those not of those circles, need to be managed, reared and schooled and worked…. or else we’ll ‘act-up’ like a three year old and break something.. exactly what a wreck-loose and ‘drop out’ of society like Zerzan will end up doing and instigating others to do.

So we accept the world, policy and all the rest at face value and can’t see ourselves objectively one bit.

We can ‘capitalize’ on the direction the documentary is pointing out- to CEASE CONSUMING BLINDLY, for starters.

CHOICE CONSUMPTION.

It is all a basket of carrots anyway people, all that shiny stuff that makes you ‘feel’ rich and important.

Most media, even a documentary aimed at revealing our addiction to consumption, is over the top from reality… the attempt is ‘cinema verite’ but you usually end up with something accentuated and bigger than real life… and sometimes it is purposed this way.

ALL OUR MEDIA OUTLETS FEEDING US THE DAILY DELUGE IS ACCENTUATED.

Is Castro’s view and attempt correct? NO

Is Zerzan’a view and suggestion to end all and the final solution?  NO

Is Cesar’s view and attempt correct?  STILL NO.

Even after 2000+ years, cesar still ends up crucifying his dissidents and critics…. and further stigmatizes folks not taken to the program / status quo…. and further feeds ( most gov jobs some argue ) supports and further corrupts his YES men.

Is our daily habit killing ourselves?  YES

Do we see and understand this fully?  NO

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 27, 2010 at 8:31 am Link to this comment

Socialized Capitalism, seems an oxymoron to those not privy to the actual definition and I have found it seems hard for some people to wrap their brain around the two words, for what their combined meaning, ..... result was befuddlement! 

Of course I seem always befuddled!

Report this

Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook