Remember the older kids on the block, would never let the little brother or sister play with them.
Always staying the older kid has its advantages.

http://www.freeandequal.org/events.php?id=5

is the link for the debate and to give question input, check it out.

Also, my blog, for statistical reinforcement that WE the outside support to the challenge against the two party corrupt politics for the REAL DEBATE at the SIX way level, is deserved.

http://www.MVToday.blogspot.com

WE CAN DO IT.

VOTE OUT THE TWO PARTY CORRUPT TYRANNY

vote out corporate rule

vote in people’s power at a majority rule level!

Just discovered this news yesterday, and see the previous commentator also discovered it on DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman….OCTOBER 19th at 8 pm “something” is being done to allow some national visibility to the proper challenge tendered and is viable for a WIN for the BEST choice voted by VOTERS not the media. 

We are NOT ruled by the media choices, and two choices are NOT before us, SIX are, and there are 100 million registered voters nationally who are NOT in the two parties at a registration level, 21.3 by clear choice, and the others by protocol that 24 states (82 million) do not register party.  You do not elect a party, you elect a candidate, and on election day, the BEST for the OFFICE voted for is supposed to win.  Those of us who hate what is in office now are going to vote them out, it may be 100 million will do it.  62 million are registered in the two parties. If they want to, they certainly are allowed to vote for the outside challenge.

I am voting for Ralph Nader, but, this time, I see him as the BEST and the awakening of the public that they can choose the BEST means they MUST compare the merits of all six and vote the BEST into office.

The media is offering ugly tyranny against Democracy, and that is because the Democrats are insisting on they own our votes, they do not.

I am NOT voting for obama, he is not ever getting my vote.  I hate the Democrats, they are villians, and do not deserve my vote.  They allowed what we have by Bush.  And, the claim of party rule against sanity is theirs to hold the proper responsibility of why and how Bush got into office, and yes, of course, this time they think it nets their lesser of two evils into office.

I am voting for the BEST of the SIX and that man has a track record to support the ON TRACK platforms.

see my blog for latest post on the sunday debate with links, and previous posts for the statistics of 50 states to show the challenge of status quo can happen on November 4th.

Net change by a majority at the ballot box, as it is supposed to happen.

Breaking the Sound Barrier: Third-Party Candidates Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney Respond to Final McCain-Obama Debate

Listen or watch online @ http://www.democracynow.org/

Cyrena and 95flhtlc….Cyrena claimed no one is demonstrating against Nader - the media will not talk “straight” - an overview THEME of the REAL NADER is not OFFERED - when he offered the Green Party the media wouldn’t have it, when he offers Independent Candidate, the media refuses presentation…WHAT should be given from a corporate media is strong merits but they want parrots and lipstick no merits no change for real—mainstream for public v corporate commercialism—truth dig, let’s get some truth up front….
TWO PARTY POWERMONGER FACT DEMONSTRATED: ONE VERY APPARENT ‘DEMONSTRATION’ AS A LITERAL FACT was by Howard Dean in 2004, shown (METRO PHOTO) holding a protest sign outside a Nader Rally in Oregon AFTER DEAN, the only previously supposedly viable anti-war candidate had dropped out, another fact OF POWERMONGERING AGAINST NADER TO WIN, PENNSYLVANIA ILLEGAL PROTEST BY LAWYERS ILLEGALLY UPHELD BY THE COURT.  It was organized crime by the Democrat Party.  Both parties love powermongering they are NOT for the people,they are for themselves, liars, “A vote for Nader is NOT for Nader—if you like them better, then yes.  What is Nader offering?  People power against corruption. 

Some of politics is gamesmanship, while it is totally SERIOUS business and for a proper Presidential Result, still, when you are in a party campaign race during the primaries, honest humility to allow competition is supposed to net the majority rule, and I have only seen Nader offering what looks to me like inordinate humility to the point of what they did to Dean….as if the candidate is not wanted BY THE MEDIA as if that is the PUBLIC’S VIEW…Nader wants fair competition, entirely.  He wants the debates.  He knows the polls were not fair.

“no Independent has ever won before” doesn’t mean it is not ok to try, the media presents his actual track record as if it were not an astonishment not an offering worth a presidency but a public interest track record offensive to ....politics so used to offering promises that can and will not be delivered - the public votes as a “nation of sheep” as if they have no real democracy….it is heinous.

The parrot, I hated the parrot, in the extreme.  And, I believe I saw tears on Nader’s face, and he turned his head from the Camera, because the reason was the reality of the question and the answer…DOES THE MEDIA WANT WHAT THEY SHOULD WANT, or IS THIS PARROT WHAT they wanted!

Oh yes, they wanted the parrot, the media wanted that put down to try to put Nader down, but it showed WHO THE MEDIA IS.  FACTS in your face, and you will not see the facts.

He is not interested in lipstick on a pig, he is not interested in the photo of Sarah Palin with an American Flag bikini holding a rifle with her smile that comes with anything she says, good bad or indifferent….parrots are preferred by Nader, to be honest…I know it.

I watched the parrot video for only one reason, to see if Nader had lost his mind.  He had not. The status quo is what the media tells you you want to elect!!!!  The majority does not believe in the duty of yourselves to pick the best and admit the mainstream owes the proper competition?

Parrots get their attention.

Blame Nader!

I hated it, I agree.

(I believe he is working with the “army that he has” to “Fight the Good Fight” (title of a book by Nader, recent)

HE DESERVES FAIR AND PROPER PRESENTATION.  I think he is beautiful, sincere, gracious, and the best.

This whole conversation is off track.  Nader isn’t a third party candidate.  He has no party.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY is the Green Party candidate for President of the United States.  Where’s that discussion?

http://votetruth08.com/

”...and the powermongering demonstrated against Nader should be seen for what it is…”

Well Elizabethe, that isn’t gonna happen, because there *is* no ‘powermongering’ being demonstrated against Nader. Since no such thing is happening, there’s nothing to see.

What you’re complaining about is that the Mainstream media, and the mainsteam of the political system isn’t going to bow in front of Nader to pay the homage to him that he believes is his due. No one is making the pilgrimage TO Nader, so you claim that as a demonstration AGAINST him. That’s the typical arrogance that he displays. So don’t even TRY to say that people are demonstrating anthing AGAINST Nader, because that’s a total falsehood, and would require some actual ‘action’ on the part of whomever is allegedly doing this. But that’s not the case. Nobody is paying any attention to Nader, (or at least the majority isn’t) because Nader doesn’t put himself out there for the majority to see, or get to know. Nader truly believes that ‘the people should come to HIM’ and not that he should go to the people. And he believes this IN SPITE of the fact that he isn’t all that ‘approachable’ by the average citizen.

This is quite acceptable in many cultures, particularly in the cultures of the Middle East, which is where his family immigrated from. You see how even Dick Cheney is willing to run over to Saudi Arabia to kiss the royal’s asses. But, that isn’t the way the majority of American’s are indoctrinated to expect things. And now, after 8 years, people are PISSED at the government, and they want somebody who isn’t making this about ‘them’ but about US.

So, this isn’t ‘about’ Ralph Nader, and that isn’t the media’s fault. It’s about US. If Nader wanted to humble himself to the extent that he’d be willing to actually ASK for our vote, instead of TELLING us that he’s the only one capable of leading us out of or away from the abyss, it might make a difference. But, he never has, and there’s no reason to expect him to now. He’s already shown his distain for the system by refusing to take part in it, and that means that if he’s turning his nose up at the system, (has consistently refused to run for Congress) he’s turning his nose up at us.

Yeah, we’re grateful for the safety regulations that he worked up and insisted upon. But since he couldn’t be so bothered with joining the system, much of the work he did those many decades ago has become undone, because he never wanted to commit to a life of public service.

So be it. Now we’ll elect somebody who has made public service a priority since day one. Barack Obama organized people to help themselves in New York. He did the same thing on the South Side of Chicago. He ran for and obtained public office in the Il State Legislature, and then in the US Congress. He’s consistently made himself available at the behest of the public, and Nader has not, even though he could have.

Why is that complicated?

Yes, I’d like the man that talks to a parrot to be president. Really. If you don’t put a “third party” in congress, what exactly is is a “third party” going to get accomplished in the whitehouse? Answer: Nothing.

Comment to Crimes against the State - saying Alternative Media should do the fight to represent third parties…only if they are truly due that level of “insult”...and I do not believe Ralph Nader belongs in that camp, I believe those who want only protest status belong in that camp, and yes, with the criminal level of the positions of the sleezy and corporate corrupt claiming they are the deliverers of our democracy, I totally disagree with that, and did not feel any obligation to vote when I believed my only two choices were the two parties, finally, I was aware I did not support either as president and I would not ever vote for “evil” corrupt sleeze when the outcome is what we have in front of us, and the powermongering demonstrated against Nader should be seen for what it is…protest against the public interest by the corporate corrupt who think they “own” politics with their money corrupt use of taxes that are indeed produced by the earnings of workers in the private sector, but after the take home pay is used, the taxes are intended for such things as police, firemen, healthcare, and so forth, we KNOW the government is NOT for the corrupt greed, not for corporate bailouts, not for unwanted military aggrandizement, the taxes are for the public benefit, and are supposed to stay in the red.  Nader’s platforms are for the MAINSTREAM and his platforms support the U.S. Constitution.

Both McCain, Obama, and certainly BUSH do not offer proper priorities on track for a balanced budget that uses taxes to respect the mainstream at the majority rule public interest level.

This is not a matter for laughing when asked why the majority doesn’t expect the challenge to the status quo to be viable, it is viable and up to the individual to vote individual truth to net a total that reflects an HONEST majority.  Government is not for liars.

The media is not “alternative” that needs to address the majority rule.  The mainstream is not doing it, and it is because they are corporate corrupt and they like it and have admitted it, and are in the face of the enlightened fans of the third party challenge, which, YES, Nader identifies with them.  He had offered the Greens a chance, but they saw themselves as little, and they did not offer the proper support, I can say that, as a registered Independent and a Green Wannabe, who, I admit, I did not know why I had not joined, I wondered, “what are you waiting for?”  They need the numbers.  But, to answer that quickly, I never heard of them until 2000 when I was told Ralph Nader was running (August) and I asked, “Really?  What party?!!!”  I believe I had told the anti-war demonstrator that I had stopped voting and was against war and against nukes both at 100 percent.  When he said, “Green Party” I was happy, and ran to the library to find an out of date, but nice book, on the Green Party.  The copyright was about 1986 or 1985.  Subtitle, for the benefit of this audience as to relevance about “mainstream”—the subtitle said, “we are neither left nor right, we are out in front”—well,yes, I agree, but on principle, not on track record at the level I believe deserves the Presidency, and I believe both Nader and the Greens deserve mainstream publicity, but also the other third parties belong in the picture.  The public is supposed to show the true level of majority rule, and the voters who want the other votes to count for something are supposed to get the national limelight, but at the proportionate level.  It is for the PEOPLE to decide. 

The mainstream media owes DEMOCRACY to the mainstream to net majority rule!

Yes, there is work to do, immediate is best!

“We the People” rule as sovereign at the ballot box.  Two party rule is in office, not in the election system.  24 states do not register party, just voters to vote (one would hope free will choice to net the best as a majority choice and “rule” proven)—82 million voters are in those 24 states.

I discovered that reality “we do not register party” from states such as Texas (over 12 million) and Vermont (425,921) and realized—oh my gosh, that must be entirely historical.  Entirely.  26 states allow party declaration, and the current, as of June 2008 statistics show a overview of a significant number OUTSIDE the two parties: 21.3 million and—IF you contrast the outside v the combined “inside” at the voter registration party enrollment level, the 62 million in the COMBINED two parties against those NOT registered in those two parties, namely the status quo “established” parties, it is 38% v 62%.

Certainly the outside HAS the right to believe they have a REAL CHANCE to WIN at a MAJORITY RULE level, and that they should, if they do not like the status quo.

For those interested, there is an interesting critical examination of the two-party system included near the end of Zeitgeist: Addendum the movie.

Zeitgeist: Addendum! Now playing @ google.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

Folktruther, October 13 at 9:22 am #

Of course that this isn’t what you learned in high school, Inherit, through the many years it probably took you to complete it.
****************************************

On the theory that even a broken clock is right twice a day you managed to actually make a point I can agree with, sort of, despite the fact that you couched it in the idiot language of pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric.

OF COURSE the founding fathers “rigged” it.  THAT’S WHAT THE “GREAT COMPROMISE” WAS ALL ABOUT!  They were ensuring that the states retained power over the population and therefore their own local control of the states.  However, they never had a clue that it would result in a two-party system.  The first party, the Federalists, were barely a party. The Republicans (Democratic-Republicans, now the Democrats) were the first REAL party.

Define “many” years.  It actually didn’t take that long.  After all, our school didn’t require us to learn the bullshit rhetoric used by the pseudo-revolutionaries.  You know, you write like a 60’s radical—as they did back in the 60’s.

The US two party system IS a ploy, Inherit, an historical conspiracy of the powerful.  The function of the Constittion was to restrict and prevent democracy, not further it, so the powerful could keep their land, slaves and property. 

Of course that this isn’t what you learned in high school, Inherit, through the many years it probably took you to complete it.

Mr. Ritter, I wonder if you have seen the movie Zeitgeist: Addendum? And if you care to confirm or deny or comment regarding its allegations concerning the CIAs involvement in Iraq during the 90s?

Zeitgeist: Addendum! Now playing @ google.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

Fear and loathing, October 12 at 7:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

We have a two party system that actively fights third party ballot access at the state a federal level, research the debate commission act.
***********************************
Research “The Great Compromise” if you want a real understanding of why we have a two party system.  Sure the 2 main parties try to push 3rd parties out.  But the reason they are successful goes back to the Constitution Convention that created our nation and government and made a system in which only 2 parties could thrive.

It’s not due to a plot. It’s due to the Constitution’s attempt to preserve the influence of the states, small or large, versus the population.

It’s simple. You learned about it in high school!

KDelphi,

Thanks so much for the informative post. I too have lived in many places, and always as a public servant. My experiences with management were similar to yours, but I was determined NOT to be run out. Otherwise, there would be that many ‘fewer’ of us to actually take care of real PEOPLE, rather than allowing the management to get over on them.

And, THAT’S what I mean about working ‘within’ the system. One has little power to do any of that, from outside of the system, whichever ‘system’ it is that we’re talking about. I’m not saying or suggesting that we can ‘change’ the entire structure, or even help every single body. But your strength was in what you did, and it was obvious in your evaluations…that you cared about the clients, and that they knew it. THAT was the point, and at the end of the day, your purpose in being there. It was to serve your clients, and at least SOME of them (who probably would *not* have otherwise been served) were taken care of.

There’s a limited amount that ANY ‘one’ of us can do, but whatever we can do, (I’d like to believe) is better than nothing at all. And yes, over time…even if it’s a long time, it picks up and some of those changes become permanent, and we spread what little we DO have, to others that can and hopefully will do the same.

Folk—Yes, I have. I’m not sure that that is good—-it seems I never really found a “soft place to land”.

Always looking for some place better.

Actually, I was in NH about a year, FL about 2, and CA about 3 mos. (I found that I could not afford to live). And other places. Some, I remember with great sentimentality—probably too much.

Too bad that, when I “fell” I was in Ohio. Havent been able to get out since.

A very unusual life, I would say. Good and bad. Ran away at 15, and except for staying with my dad in Detroit, never really stopped. Till I was forced.

My, Kdelphi, you do get around.  What happened to you, pension-wise, is now going to happen to the entire country.

The airlines (and other necessities) are nationalized in most socialized democracries. In sucvh a case, a worker would not lose their pension, retirement, etc, just because the airline messed up. As for doing it efficiently—Scandanavian Airlines has had ONE fatal crash. Ever.

I realize that the countries of Scand. are smaller.

Everytime I tried to “work within the system to change it”, for one, it rarely worked and , two, I usually ended up getting angry and quitting, or making it oh-so-obvious I “had to leave”. It would usually be over complaining to “management” about lousy client conditions or meeting a client in a coffee shop when they were suicidal rather than locking them up.

Workimg for 3 county govts (in Ohio), one state govt in OH, one county govt in NH—dont even ask—I went in August and it looked pretty. One in S. CA and one in Fla. So, it was harder to “transfer benefits”.

From what I learned, the combination of power and morality were extremely difficult to come by.

I need not have been worried—when you go on Medicaid, they take your PERS anyway! (If you are paying into PERS, you dont pay as much into SS, so you wont receive that, either)

I am certainly not saying that any one of my co-workers was “immoral”—to the contrary! Some of the people I worked with, with what was considered to be the “worst of the de-institutionalized”, were some of the most patient, kind, caring ane respectful people I’d ever met. Alot of them had worked with these people IN tehe institutions, for many years, but only had high school. When they closed the warehouse, they had to apply to “work under me”, because I gad a BA then. Telling a 56 yr old Af. Am. woman how to work with clients , she had devoted half of her life to, was difficult.(I was in my early 20s) My boss kept giving me the “10 Minute Mgr.” and other “mgmt” books—I consisitently got low scores on that, but not on the actions towards clients, from anyone on my team.

In fact, when I decided to take a position elsewhere, I asked for my evals and a letter. Joe said, “horrible mgmt skills, never delegates , (I alwasy thought that I shouldnt ask someone else to do something I woudl not do myself), but, her one outstanding asset, is , that she genuineley cares about each and every clinet. She believes she is “working for them”. (Quote Joe’s). And the clients know it.”

And, that is what it is a public servent’s job to do. We are not here to “school them” nor project our beliefs on him. Candidatez should present their beliefs and respond to what is best for the majority of the population (their bosses), once elected. It is nothing more than a job interview. WE pay their salary. WE put them where they are (or not) And , they should never forget it.

“To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice” Confucius

I think one of the members of the G7 should say, “George, if you want to help, stand over there.”

Thanks Tony Wicher.  Great Link!

Check out this link from the Real News on the nationalization of banks.

Alright, Cyrena, if it makes you feel better I will use your language.  You didn’t ‘support’ the bill, you just wanted Congress to do SOMETHING.  I suppose the other Dems that voted for it didn’t ‘support’ it either.

Not being familiar with this terminology, I suppose you could say the Dems ‘opposed’ it.  It reminds one, does it not, of Orwell’s characterization of political language.  But this is what one has to do if one wants to be one the INSIDE of politial power.  I hope my accomidation to your language helps to ease your small, cold, black heart.

Folktruther,
I failed to mention to you earlier, (and for the record) that I DID NOT ‘support’ this last bail out of Wall Street, just like I didn’t ‘support’ the 2001 and 2002 bailouts of Wall Street. Again, why would you say that? There has been a history of Wall Street/Corporate bailouts since the 1970’s, (I posted a time line here once) and I haven’t “supported” any of them. I clearly don’t understand the motivations behind your slander. Please give me a hint.

Just as an aside, I was employed by one of the several ‘bailed out’ airlines after 9/11. Those same airlines fired thousands of their workers, even after the bail outs. That was 7 years ago, and for the most part, (to the extent that I’ve been able to follow them and the project) MOST of those workers have not been able to find other employment. They are without any of their retirement benefits, and of course many of them were employed by the same companies for years, because that was back in the era where people generally went to work for a single company, and made it their ‘careers’ even though in my own language, a ‘career’ is not the same as a ‘job’.

All of that said, I’ve been about as ‘anti-corporation’ for as long as I can remember, which is probably why I was generally the biggest pain in the ass of corporate management at my own company for as long as I was. None of that changes the ‘reality’ of how the system has come about, and how interconnected it is to everything else. And, I alone haven’t been able to prevent that from happening. I’m a renegade, not a miracle worker, and the only GOOD I’ve ever been able to accomplish, has been from working WITHIN the system, since without the opportunity to put my hands on the real motor, I wouldn’t have been able to accomplish shit. Instead, I’d be like everybody else standing on the outside looking in, and bitching about not being able to do anything about anything.

Now I don’t support ‘churches’ either Folktruther. But if I see one on fire, and I know that there are a bunch of people inside of it likely to burn to death, I’m gonna call the fire department, not just watch it burn down.

So with this most recent bailout, I didn’t support the terms of it either, but I knew SOMETHING needed to be done. There WERE far better plans. None of them good, but some better than what they came up with. So no,  I don’t like it a damn bit. Now, tell me how that changes anything.

Re:  Folktruther

“They don’t believe in truth and honesty, but in power, like the Gops.  This is quite different than voting for Dems without illusions, for which a progressive argument can be made.”
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— -
That’s exactly what I recommend - voting for Obama and the Democrats without illusions. We are at a critical point in history. International socialism is being born in the bosom of international capitalism. Obama just happens to be present at this moment to sieze the time. Check out this link from the Real News on the nationalization of banks.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2557

outraged—That would be my interpretation also. But, who knows what the hell these guys think.

I am going out on a limb here, but—-humor me. One reason that the Dems did not react to the “police state” treatment in Denver, and, even worse, in St. Paul?

I actually would have no evidence that that was true.

It just seems like rationalizing to me, that Congress was “scared off by threat of martial law” if they did not vote for the Bailout. I’m sorry, I’m just not buying that one.

They have no problem at all, with designating “protest zones”, allowing arrests, and, throwing peoepl out of public hearings, even when they are just holding a sign or wearing a hat.

Lefeller—Nope. That one would be called “suspect” because Klein is on it. (that is what someone told jme!) Here is where I found this.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/24/a rmy/index.html

I cut and pasted the quote. It was not mine.—-

Afghanistan….?  Militaristic ideologies…?  Get the facts.  Should we support or CONDONE any militaristic “options”..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CKpCGjD8wg&feat ure=related

Outraged and KDelpha,

Is this what you are looking for?

http://www.alternet.org/story/101958/

Re: KDelphi

Thank you for your post.  It seems suspect, that the verbiage is spelled out this way,  “or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations…

Is there a document we can refer to (that you’re aware of) which enlightens us as to “government provacations”.  In effect, it appears to me this is claiming that, we (the government) can invoke civil disorder, and if we do… it will be YOUR fault.  Am I reading this correctly…?

Here is where Bush took away Posse Comitatus Act power. It also says it in a signing statement.

“The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced “sea-smurf”).The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist “incident,” if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of “public order,” or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations… . Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl LEVIN (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John WARNER (R-Va.). Sen. Ted KENNEDY openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan HUNTER (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent… .

Only Pat Leahy dissenteed, and was largely ignored.

This is what I was trying to find earlier.

Okay… I just reread my post… sorry about overuse of “in this regard”.... LOL

Re:  Folktruther

“They don’t believe in truth and honesty, but in power, like the Gops.  This is quite different than voting for Dems without illusions, for which a progressive argument can be made.”

I agree, on both points.  Your second proposal casts much needed light upon the concerns I think others also have in this regard.  And I do think there is an argument to be made in this regard.  Absolutely.

Obviously, this is not the determination I have come to in this regard.  But yes… this is something I could qualify, no illusions… sure.., I can certainly understand WHY someone may choose to go that route.  Good point.

The problem with arguing with people like Cyrena and Tony Wicher is that they are intellectually dishonest, Cyrena creatively so.  They both support militarism and corporate control and Cyrena supported the bailout swindle.  As the Dem party goes to the right the Dem truthers become more and more dishonest, like the Gop truthers.

~~~~~

Come on Folktruther, quit lying with the negative rhetoric. There is nothing ANYWHERE in any of my posts that would suggest or in any way imply that I am in favor of ‘militarism’, because I’ve made it abundantly clear on multiple occassions that I am NOT. If you wanna disagree with me on a valid point, that’s fine, and people SHOULD argue. But the intellectual dishonesty is all yours for saying the above.

You’ve greatly diminished yourself in making such statements, especially when it’s not even in your own defense.

~~~~

Outraged, I think the Constitution is still in effect as well. Maybe somebody should tell Dick Bush.

I’m not sure how many times I can state the obvious. I tried the best way the first time, when I told you that anti-trust laws are totally disregarded, and specifically be CORPOEATIONS. I don’t think you’re than dense, but maybe I’m wrong.

I explained that DEREGULATION has made anti-trust laws obsolete, and it doesn’t have shit to do with the FCC. You fail Outraged. Go to a very simple book, and find out what anti-trust laws are about, specifically in terms of the MARKET PLACE!!!

Here’s an example of market place anti-trust Outraged. Airline A, (no longer constrained by regulations) decides that they want to drive their competition out of business. So, on the routes that they SHARE with the competition, they decide to lower their fares. They lower their fares for maybe 6 months, say from Dallas/Ft. Worth to Kansas City. Now here you are, and you have a choice to pay $28.00 to get between those two points on airline A, or you can pay $140.00 for the same trip on Airline B. The AVERAGE person is going to go for the lower fare. Now when Airline B starts losing their business on that route, (because they can’t afford to operate at those prices, generally because they are a smaller operation) and they lose business the same way on other routes where they’re also competitive, they go out of business. THAT’S how the big guys knock the little guys right out of the sky.

And, once the competition is gone, then airline A hikes that former $28.00 fare up to $342.00, and YOU (the consumer) are forced to pay it, because by then, Airline A is the only game in town. They’ve wiped out the competition, which is what protects the consumer, and THAT is anti-trust. It’s illegal, immoral, and it happens every day of the year.

Now go do something Outraged, besides wasting my time.

The democratic party is still the center-right, pro-war, pro-poverty party it was ten years ago; it has not been remade and certainly not by delusional idiots who thought that voting for the right wing celebrity candidate in the primaries would ‘change the party’ but will just have something worse than Bill Clinton. 

There is an alternative, Thatcherites, and I’m glad some of us are pursuing it.  The reforms I listed in my earlier post are completely possible.

sephoj, October 11 at 4:20 pm
I made the same point yesterday October 10 at 3:40 am
Pretty much kills his point.

Folktruther, October 11 at 4:14 pm #

That the Dem party has been remade is simply absurd given its sellout of the Dem rank and file.  But more and more of this cynicism will be exhibited by Dem apologists as the party continues to move to the right.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
Which it isn’t doing, it’s moving to the left, which is what you would expect in these economic times.

Re sephoj, October 11 at 4:20 pm

Right.

SCOTT—YOU WROTE While we will never know for certain, I am strongly inclined to believe that, had Obama in fact been a senator in 2002, his status as a political animal with high aspirations would have compelled him to take the same politically expedient move all of his similarly inclined senatorial colleagues did, and vote in favor of the war powers resolution.
BUT http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a /Obama2002War.htm
Barack Obama’s Stirring 2002 Speech Against the Iraq War
POOR ON YOUR PART, SCOTT, TO ASSUME BARACK WOULD NOT DO THE SAME THING IF HE WERE IN THE SENATE. HE GAINED NOTHING FOR DOING IT IN HIS STATE SENATOR RACE, RIGHT!?

Outraged, I’m sure you followed Cyrena’s argument.  The US electoral system is not rigged against third parties because the Dems themselves have been remade into a third party. and anyone who doesn’t think so is anal.  Presumably therefore the old Dem hacks around Obama, and Biden his VP, have also been remade.  It’s been a huge success!

The problem with arguing with people like Cyrena and Tony Wicher is that they are intellectually dishonest, Cyrena creatively so.  They both support militarism and corporate control and Cyrena supported the bailout swindle.  As the Dem party goes to the right the Dem truthers become more and more dishonest, like the Gop truthers. 

Unless you are amused by the gyrations and sophistry of the arguments, there is no point arguing with them. They don’t believe in truth and honesty, but in power, like the Gops.  This is quite different than voting for Dems without illusions, for which a progressive argument can be made.

That the Dem party has been remade is simply absurd given its sellout of the Dem rank and file.  But more and more of this cynicism will be exhibited by Dem apologists as the party continues to move to the right.

Twice, regarding major issues, even with the people (not just progressives) decidedly against FISA and the bailout, Obama voted against the people’s wishes and in favor of big business.  This was no small matter.

By cyrena, October 10 at 9:51 pm #

I’m not buying the stuff about the system being rigged against a 3rd party, when I’ve been part of a huge (and so far successful) movement to remake the Democratic Party. And for those who can think beyond one channel, THAT is the same as a 3rd party!! Only anal people have troubles when something changes its character, without changing its name, or vice versa. And no, none of it happens overnight. But, I damn sure know that working from within the system is the only way to make any significant changes. Nader has made it clear that he will not do that.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
cyrena,

I too am proud to be part of this amazingly successful movement to make the Democratic party democratic again. Nader worked within the system back in the sixties and made significant changes. Since then he has accomplished zip, less than zip - he really fucked us all over in 2000, and still he hasn’t changed. Obama has invited him back in but he refuses. “Anal” is a good word to describe Nader and his followers.

By Inherit The Wind, October 11 at 10:58 am #

Folktruther, October 11 at 6:27 am #

Your naivete is only exceeded by your ignorance. Nor did I say the neocons, I said “christo-fascists”—yet again you “know” what I’m saying without bothering to say it.  Must be that Marxist “science” again.
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
ITW,

Yeah, you said “christofascists”, not “neocons”. Folktruther’s response was not relevant to your point. Folktruther does not trouble himself with such sensitivity but just blurs other people’s meaning to suit himself and posts one of his ideological canned responses.

Re: cyrena

Your comment: “I’m going to say this again. If this were the MARKET PLACE, they would NOT be ‘in trouble’ because DEREGULATION has made antitrust legislation IN THE MARKET PLACE, *OBSOLETE*.

And, I explained this. It’s OK if you don’t know what you’re talking about Outraged. It’s NOT OK if Nader doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and you chose to take up what is clearly wrong information. It’s not a crime to be ignorant of things, but it is morally wrong to willfully remain ignorant.”

You might want to let the FTC know this then, cause…ah…apparently they don’t.  From their website:

”Congress passed the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, in 1890 as a “comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade.” In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the FTC, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the three core federal antitrust laws still in effect today.

And of course:

“In addition to these federal statutes, most states have antitrust laws that are enforced by state attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these statutes are based on the federal antitrust laws.”

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/antitrust_laws.shtm

So…. “someone” is immorally remaining willfully ignorant, I just don’t think it’s Nader or me.

And they collude in ways that, if they were in the marketplace, they’d be in trouble, as I said earlier, with the antitrust laws.”

~~~~~

Outraged,

I’m going to say this again. If this were the MARKET PLACE, they would NOT be ‘in trouble’ because DEREGULATION has made antitrust legislation IN THE MARKET PLACE, *OBSOLETE*.

And, I explained this. It’s OK if you don’t know what you’re talking about Outraged. It’s NOT OK if Nader doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and you chose to take up what is clearly wrong information. It’s not a crime to be ignorant of things, but it is morally wrong to willfully remain ignorant.

Folktruther, October 11 at 6:27 am #

Inherit’s last post is a good illustration of this identification with power rather than people.  He states explicitly that he admires the tactics, strategy and effectiveness of the neocons, if not their politics.  But their strategy is part of their politics, Inherit merely wants to adapt them to the Dem wing of the Dem-Gop bloc.  As does Syrena, et al.
*****************************************

Your naivete is only exceeded by your ignorance. Nor did I say the neocons, I said “christo-fascists”—yet again you “know” what I’m saying without bothering to say it.  Must be that Marxist “science” again.

To not be able to differ between tactics and strategy, versus the actual objectives is why YOU and your beliefs will always be relegated to a tiny little fringe. 

I make no apology for admiring the effectiveness of a political movement even if I detest and oppose their objectives.

I see, of course, Outraged agrees with you about me.  I’m not surprised.  He’s as unobservant as you—I was addressing Cyrena, not debating either of you as that’s useless.

Re: Lefeller

Your comment: “Outraged, I usually respect your opinions, but you do seem a tad evangelical on this one.

If Nader gets enough votes to squeak McCain through, you will have have supported making everyones point and I believe Nader’s.”

Well… I suppose that depends upon your vantage point. LOL

All voices should be heard.  It might SEEM that I personally invoke the Nader candidacy more often here than most, but I don’t see that I’ve endorsed Nader any MORE than Obama’s supporters endorse their choice for president.  So are they “evangelical” also.  Or is it heresy to oppose the “true” god, Obama…? LOL

It will not be Nader’s fault, nor mine, if (with a fair vote count of course) Obama doesn’t win.  The fact that it is a close race AT ALL, illuminates the weakness of Obama’s positions to ensure a win.  He makes those choices, not I….and not Nader.

Re: Folktruther

Your comment: “Outraged, the objection of Scheer, Jackpine, etc that Nader has not helped build a party is a reasonable point.  He is an honest liberal, but indepedenent liberals are no substitute for a mobilized movement.  Which would not be based on one person.  That is one reason why I favor McKinney.”

I agree and disagree, I guess it depends more specifically on what you mean by building a movement.  Nader has mobilized many people and is/was instrumental in bringing many issues to the fore including third parties.  He has worked to build the green party when he ran as their candidate.

What Nader is asserting is that the two major parties are colluding to marginalize third parties and therefore NEVER allow third parties to gain ANY type of foothold in the political arena.  Also, I do not see Nader’s candidacy as a “one man band” so to speak.  If it is, then why would he have run as the Green Party candidate?  I know why he didn’t run in the Democratic Party, he’s sees them as corrupted by corporate dollars.  I agree.

It appears that the main argument of “not having a party” is the supposition of the dems and repubs, but yet they are the ones colluding to keep Third Parties out.  Which is the reason the Debate Commission is ran for and by the two major parties.  The debates should be ran by a neutral organization, such as was the case when it was ran by the League of Women Voters.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin quotes: 
All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all.

Re: jackpine savage

Your comment: “It really doesn’t matter to me if Nader makes Obama look like a schmuck. You seem to be falling into the Bushite logic: if you’re not with us then you’re against us.

How does that translate to the ideology of “you’re with us or against us”?  I think Nader does make Obama look like a schmuck.  Twice, regarding major issues, even with the people (not just progressives) decidedly against FISA and the bailout, Obama voted against the people.  This was no small matter.  I feel confident a President Nader would not have signed this legislation.

In response to your comments regarding third parties, I haven’t taken issue with that at all.

To answer your questions:

”It should also be noted that the more Naderites resemble proselytizing evangelicals, the less likely many of us are to listen to them.

Finally, if the system is rigged against third parties then the only way to get third parties involved is to change the system. Do you really think that the best way to go about that is to elect a president only?”

My answer: No, and I’ve never claimed as much.

“Wouldn’t it make more sense to start with the House, where candidates can be successful on a personal level?”

My answer: I think this is needed ALSO, so YES, it is one of the options we have.

”My rep is a Dem who is regularly reelected in a conservative district. He does this by being known and trusted, even by the “opposition”. Nader can’t knock on enough doors to become personally known, no presidential aspirant can.”

My perspective: Nader is ALREADY a household name to most people over the age of 45.  This is a huge voting block and one more likely to vote.  In addition, in this group Nader is well regarded.  Although, there is a resurgence of young voters for Nader also.
“And why is Nader not trying to form a coalition with other minor parties?

Other parties..?  Should the dem and repubs, converge…?  They have a lot in common, they could just “pool” those corporate funds and have one big party…no…