Vote No Evil 2012

[AndyZ]

If you need to have it explained why you're voting for the lesser evil between Democrats and Republicans, this thread probably isn't for you.  However, if you're like me, you're sick of having to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

I was going to wait until we were closer to the election before posting this, but I'm insomnia-cranky enough to go for it now.  Here's my plan for trying to fix this:

Find someone within your state who you trust but who's going to cancel your vote.

If you're going to hold your nose and vote for Obama, find someone who's going to hold their nose and vote for Romney.  Make sure that you're in the same state, and if your state divides up the electoral college by region, you want to be in the same region as well.

Both of you vote for another party.

This is where the "trust" aspect comes in.  Both of you vote for someone other than Democrat or Republican.  This can be Libertarian party, Socialist party, Toga party, whatever.  Vote for who you really want, not the lesser evil.  If you don't really trust the person, maybe you can both vote absentee, showing each other the ballots.

Because of the way the electoral college works, you effectively haven't wasted your vote any more than you would have otherwise.  In most states, the victor gets the spoils, but no matter how many people do this, both the Democrat and Republican candidates lose an equal number of votes.

Although it would arguably be easier just to have both people not vote, I don't think that would give the right message.  We already have atrociously low voting participation in this country.  I want the numbers to spike on the other parties and show that we have more choices, that we're not just the unthinking slaves of the biggest and evilest.

Get the non-voters to vote third party also.

There's a lot of people who don't want either Democrat or Republican, who aren't going to vote because it doesn't make a difference.  We need to get them in on this too.  If we all start doing this, it'll be our chance to get out of the two-party trap.



In 2012, we'll be lucky to get 10,000 people willing to do this.  If people like the idea, they can start spreading it through Facebook and similar methods.  Now, 10,000 by itself isn't going to seem like a lot, but people will notice.  Commentators will have heard of this movement and mention how we got a decent number of people, and we continue to get others interested.

In 2014, we keep this up.  House Representatives are by county and Senators are by state, but the method works the same.  Only now, people are familiar with the concept.  When we have more than just a few congresspeople who aren't either Democrat or Republican, we can start actually fixing this country.

By 2016, maybe the idea's taken off, maybe not.  The brilliant part is that you lose NOTHING by trying it.  Normally, third-party candidates take votes away from the candidate who they're most like, but if your vote would've been canceled anyway, your vote is now free to give it to the person who deserves it.

Anyone who likes this idea is free to spread it.  If you see an honest mistake of mine which would hamper the idea, please let me know and I'll fix it up.

If you think the idea could work but that we'll never get enough people to make a difference, please don't bother posting.

[MasterMischief]

Not voting for the lesser of two evils may give us the greater of two evils.  I am not willing to take that chance.

[Callie Del Noire]

I prefer to encourage everyone I know to vote. To do at least a 'little' reading and listening of their own, and off of channels they normally listen to.

[Reno]

I'm not convinced that the third parties are any less evil than the Republicrats, though, so it seems to me that this idea is flawed on it's face.

Near as I figure it, you can't denounce one evil without supporting the other, and it was set up intentionally so. And since we're gonna get screwed either way, I might as well just save the gas, unless there's an important non-election issue on the ballot (last time was 2008, but the homophobic rednecks got it passed anyway, thus ending my donations to any local charities).

[Callie Del Noire]

You know.. the reason I push everyone to vote is this.

More voters = more people in the process. If more people get involved, more will (eventually) start asking why their elected officials lied about X,Y, and Z. More people skews the old classic structure.

A 3rd party surge would skew the current locked dynamic and the two parties would look to see what they want in return for 'playing' the game. Not an ideal solution but either by drawing discussion from one party, or encouraging the two parties to compromise and dialog, this could make things work the way they supposed to.

Breaking the rigid partisan attitude of BOTH parties is needed. Right now we got an extreme majority in one house of congress, but eventually things will balance back out. Both parties suffer from chronic 'head up their ass' syndrome in their leadership.  A handful of independent or third party politicians, particularly in a more balanced congress could force them to dialog.

[Callie Del Noire]

Eeeek... Michele Bachman stumping for a 'role' in building up the gender divide for Romney.. EVIL!!!!

[Sophronius]

I'm not sure our voter turnout is really that terrible during general elections.  Wikipedia says it's 63%, which isn't that bad.  And if you consider how much lower it was just two decades ago, that's a real improvement.  I mean, four years ago, over 131 million people voted and eight years ago over 122 million people voted.  If 10,000 people do what you're suggesting, that would be less than one ten thousandth of the votes cast.  And if you consider how many people already vote for "3rd" parties, 1,623,550 last election, 10,000 more would only be a 0.6% increase.  Which is a pretty small increase, all things considered.

Callie del Noire is right - partisan rigidity is a greater danger than a two party system.  As well as people like Michele Bachmann.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm not sure our voter turnout is really that terrible during general elections.  Wikipedia says it's 63%, which isn't that bad.  And if you consider how much lower it was just two decades ago, that's a real improvement.  I mean, four years ago, over 131 million people voted and eight years ago over 122 million people voted.  If 10,000 people do what you're suggesting, that would be less than one ten thousandth of the votes cast.  And if you consider how many people already vote for "3rd" parties, 1,623,550 last election, 10,000 more would only be a 0.6% increase.  Which is a pretty small increase, all things considered.

Callie del Noire is right - partisan rigidity is a greater danger than a two party system.  As well as people like Michele Bachmann.

Compare US voter turn out to turn out in other democratic countries. Check out the list lower down the right side of your Wiki link. Most of the European countries EASILY cap out 10% or higher than us.

The last election, to me, was a good thing. It's possibly the first time since the Nixon election (Pre-Watergate) that we've crossed the 68% range among African-American voters and one of the few times we've been seen north of 65% since Kennedy ran for office.

[Sophronius]

I know that as per that chart, our voter turnour is awful in comparison, but the information in the chart is almost 20 years old and voter turnout has been on the rise for those 20 years.  And I don't know what voting trends in other countries look like, so I figured it was best not to mention comparatives.

[TyKing]

Why even bother to vote? It's not like your opinion matters since the popular vote never got anyone elected. And Florida will always be there to screw us all.

[Zakharra]

Why even bother to vote? It's not like your opinion matters since the popular vote never got anyone elected. And Florida will always be there to screw us all.

With that attitude, why have a vote at all then?

[Callie Del Noire]

I know that as per that chart, our voter turnour is awful in comparison, but the information in the chart is almost 20 years old and voter turnout has been on the rise for those 20 years.  And I don't know what voting trends in other countries look like, so I figured it was best not to mention comparatives.

Thing is.  The US vote at least is worse. The voters are the percentages of REGISTERED voters, not US Citzens ELIGIBLE to register to vote. Depending on the source you look at, only about HALF of the public bothers to register. Which means for example the 63% of the 2008 turn out is something like 31.1% in actuality. I helped to register voters in 2 of my commands and even in the military I'd say 1 in 3 hadn't bothered to register. EVER.

[OldSchoolGamer]

With that attitude, why have a vote at all then?

Well, he does have a point.  Truth be told, we will never get a Presidential candidate elected who is not loyal to the megacorps (the people who actually run America regardless of who is elected--Obama and Congress are just front men).  Why?  The Electoral College.  You can bet that if a populist did manage to make it through the process without taking a bullet and getting dragged from the river a week later, the Electoral College would be gamed to block him or her there.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, he does have a point.  Truth be told, we will never get a Presidential candidate elected who is not loyal to the megacorps (the people who actually run America regardless of who is elected--Obama and Congress are just front men).  Why?  The Electoral College.  You can bet that if a populist did manage to make it through the process without taking a bullet and getting dragged from the river a week later, the Electoral College would be gamed to block him or her there.

You are being overly cynical. It's harder to do it than in the past. Too many groups, too much transparency. My brother has been part of the College twice. You're not as free to vote as you think. The party won't just simply let you 'vote your conscience'.

Granted getting there is hard. Just look at the chronic LACK of positive press that Ron Paul gets. He wins a poll it's 'irrelevant', he wins a poll, it's 'telling and imformative, and shows how he's 'damaging' the party line by diving them'.

Truth be told.. it comes down to the leadership. The conservative segment of the GOP is run and led by men who learned their jobs during the Nixon era. Look at some of the men in that arena. Karl Rove, the master of the 'East Texas Special'. Dick Cheney.

A lot of the 'leaders' of the GOP who aren't elected fit the 'authoritarian' personality these days. This is NOT the type you want in leadership roles without restraint or checks in balances.

I am not as familiar about the backhistory of the leadership of the Democrats on the national level. I know more than a few of the ones that run things back in my home state. The 'East NC' mob of men and women who run the state most elections. There are more than a few authoritarians on that side too. It's just not as easy a fit for the democrats.

I'm a Moderate Republican. I've voted for Democrats, because I judge the man..not the color of his tie. I've held my nose and voted for the 'lesser evil'. I've penciled in 'Bill the Cat'. I missed one election (and let me tell you.. it was hard to keep my mouth shut for four years). I'm of the opinion that cutting things is only half the problem. No one wants to admit the truth.

No more tax breaks. We need to cinch in the belt and accept that a LOT of us will have a tax burden that will grow. Because when you look at it in a blunt and frank manner.. 'cut and burn' the budget isn't doing things right now. 'Downsizing' regulations and regulatory agencies have left us in the biggest mess since the Great Depression. Pandering to special interests have left us with our two parties so beholden to them that they are militantly partisan and have lost sight of the fact they don't work for Dow, GE and the rest of them.

We need to reform the tax code, build a system to build our country..rather than hide funds for a few men. Not give them more and more and more and more money to prop up the foundations of sand their buildings are built on. 'Too big to fail' doesn't have to mean 'prop it up no matter what'. We broke up AT&T and a LOT of things came out of it that we didnt' have. Why not divide Goldman Sachs up into 'divisions' that are separate?

Break the banks up into 'mini-BoAs' and such. Accept that we'll have to increase taxes. Restore bank regulations to ensure we can avoid the toxic mortgage pill that floated around Wall Street for years. Diminish the influence of special interests.

And for god's sake.. reverse Citizen's United! We've seen more corporate money spent in politics this year..these first FOUR MONTHS than in the entire 2000 election cycle. Estimates that 40 people have spent over 80% of the money so far.

[MasterMischief]

Dirty job killing commie!   ;D

[Callie Del Noire]

Dirty job killing commie!   ;D

Actually I have been accused of being a pinko before by a chief I worked with. I stated my concerns about the unrestricted implications of the patriot act. I think what I said was 'too few concerns about who the bad guy is beyond 'not me' makes me worry'.

And I think I've made it very clear my take on Corporate Tax reform isn't 'close the loop holes and screw the big companies'. It's more of 'make the loopholes work for the country as WELL as the company'.

[MasterMischief]

Hyperbole is the new pink.  All the cool kids do it.

[Callie Del Noire]

Hyperbole is the new pink.  All the cool kids do it.

Rhetorical recognition circuits are down.. it's an election year..they're burned out from overuse.

[MasterMischief]

Oh we haven't even started.  Both sides have the money and we know it is going to be an ugly battle.  I will not be surprised to see a resurgance in the Birther movement again.  And of course Mit will be accused of hating poor people.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh we haven't even started.  Both sides have the money and we know it is going to be an ugly battle.  I will not be surprised to see a resurgance in the Birther movement again.  And of course Mit will be accused of hating poor people.

Yeah.. I'm working up the gumption to watch. I spent an hour each on the 'big cable' news channels several days a week for my critical thinking class. I came away with an intense distaste for 'televison journalism' of all flavors. Even the 'reasonable' reporters overhype their reporting and the issues.

Last night I caught myself yelling at a segment with Michelle Bachmann.. who dodged every question asked and made it all about how the president was ruining things.

So, I am profoundly glad that I'm done with Critical thinking and am quite looking forward to my 'art class' of 'modern movie and film' appreciation next term.

[AndyZ]

You're right.  I did start this with the premise that our system is flawed, that there surely has to be somebody out there better than either Obama or Romney.  Since I seem to be the only one to think so, going to remove my Notify for this topic.

[Callie Del Noire]

You're right.  I did start this with the premise that our system is flawed, that there surely has to be somebody out there better than either Obama or Romney.  Since I seem to be the only one to think so, going to remove my Notify for this topic.

There probably is. Problem is that person is a LEADER. He/She will want to lead and make decisions and most likely will be able to think for themselves and isn't tied to special interests. The party leaders don't want someone like that as president today. They don't want someone who can rebuild the idea of coming together. So long as the party leadership controls the people in the oval office, speaker seat and other spots they can continue to maintain the status quo.

One thing I learned from seeing my brother run for office is the old folks in charge want to STAY in charge. They don't want a 40 year old to take their place.

[Serephino]

The apathetic attitude is the problem.  The people in charge get to stay in charge because people sit on their asses and whine, but don't go vote because their vote doesn't count.  This means that during an election year the candidates only have to charm enough people to win.  That's a very small percentage.  If there was a 68% voter turnout, that's only a percentage of people who actually bothered to register. 

And so, they charm just enough people, they get elected, then they do whatever the hell they want.  If they're lucky, they won't anger enough people to lose the next election.  The way things are going now, they usually don't.  If more people voted than elected officials might actually be held accountable; the way the system was meant to work. 

[Callie Del Noire]

The apathetic attitude is the problem.  The people in charge get to stay in charge because people sit on their asses and whine, but don't go vote because their vote doesn't count.  This means that during an election year the candidates only have to charm enough people to win.  That's a very small percentage.  If there was a 68% voter turnout, that's only a percentage of people who actually bothered to register. 

And so, they charm just enough people, they get elected, then they do whatever the hell they want.  If they're lucky, they won't anger enough people to lose the next election.  The way things are going now, they usually don't.  If more people voted than elected officials might actually be held accountable; the way the system was meant to work. 

Exactly, that is one of the reason it's been damn near impossible to get election days declared holidays. It's 'business as usual' so that you can not be sure of getting the maximal outcome. Add in the surge of registration and 'election' reform laws that have curtained access to the voter ids and cards and shorted 'early voting' in many states. Not all of these changes are 'reforms' or 'cost cutting measures' like they are shown to be.

If the Tea Party and ultra-conservatives continue their trends, I think you'll find that a lot of the things we consider 'fair game' on this board won't be for long.

[Caela]

Exactly, that is one of the reason it's been damn near impossible to get election days declared holidays. It's 'business as usual' so that you can not be sure of getting the maximal outcome. Add in the surge of registration and 'election' reform laws that have curtained access to the voter ids and cards and shorted 'early voting' in many states. Not all of these changes are 'reforms' or 'cost cutting measures' like they are shown to be.

If the Tea Party and ultra-conservatives continue their trends, I think you'll find that a lot of the things we consider 'fair game' on this board won't be for long.

This is also the problem with doing all the voting on ONE day. Even if you didn't want to declare it a holiday, if you did it over the course of say, 3-5, days, more people would have the ability to get out to vote. It would also make it easier for people who might not be able to take off a whole day to take just a couple hours (or less since the voting stations wouldn't be so mobbed) go and vote, and return to work.

Even if it were a holiday, some of us wouldn't be able to get the day off. For example I work 12 hour shifts at a local hospital, I have to be to work before the polls open, and by the time I get out, and to my polling station, they're closed. Now I am lucky enough to work with a great group of folks and could probably get someone to come in and cover for me for a couple hours to go vote but not everyone has that particular luxury. If voting happened over the course of a few days though, I wouldn't need it. With my 12 hours shifts, I only work 3 days a week so if we did voting over a few days, everyone in my department would have the chance on one of them to go and cast their votes.

[Missy]

I'm ashamed to say I'm one of those people not registered to vote and that I don't know near as much about the system or it's goings ons as I should. I probably lack the expertise to really know what needs to be done to solve all of the obvious problems with the system or the way it's run nowadays.

What I can say though is that I would concur with anyone who thinks the current politicians in office are more concerned with what's best for themselves than bearing in any sense of sincere patriotism. It's their leadership that's got us into this mess of excessive debt and other issues which plague our nation now.

I think maybe three or four things might actually be of use to resolving the issues:

Firstly, no more private contributions to campaigns, I think it should all come from public funds and that everyone should get an equal amount. The playing field would be leveled and the poor man would have as much running power as the wealthy man, at least as far as monetary concerns go. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about anyway? Equality? Truthfully what's the difference between wealthy elitism and nobility? Are we oligarchs or noblemen?

Corporations aren't people. This is ridiculous and frankly shows policy-makers true colours. This is ultimately nothing more than favoritism towards those most able to line the pockets of those 'responsible' for making laws with more Benjamins. Corporations aren't people, they're owned by people, people who shouldn't have any more say in government affairs than a Janitor.

Which brings up the question of lobyists. I'm not 100% certain what to do about this, but I have a couple of thoughts. First off everyone has a right to representation, however it's a rather unfair advantage when someone else can hire an entire firm of lawyers to influence legislative policy. I've already given my thoughts on the idea that a Corporation can be thought of as equal to a person. Corporations are owned by people however, who have rights equal to every other person. So they should have a right to be represented in legislative procedure, but isn't that what a Congressman does? And many of them are lawyers too. So if CEO's and members of Boards of Directors can hire lobyists so should Janitors be able too, but why bother to go through all the trouble when you can equalize everyone by cutting the entire concept of lobbyists out in the first place?

I would also do away with negative advertising during political campaigns. It may be true sometimes that saying something negative about another person is actually honest, however these negative political ad campaigns are really just about taking other people's statements out of context and telling lies over and over and over again until it sticks and people believe those lies. Part of what I noticed the "lesser of evils" concept noted in the title of this thread is that politicians are trying to get you to vote for them because the other guy is so bad. I really wouldn't take anything bad one politician said about another unless he gave it to me in essay form and did so using full references to every point he or she made. It's entirely possible that none of these things are true and that some of these fellows are actually good guys, but of course if they are such good people why would they pay someone to make up lies about another person and tell those lies over and over and over again until you believe them?

So anyways, I'm actually convinced now that the way the system currently works is the worst possible way to discern the truth and decide who is best for the job. I suppose no one is truly worthy of my vote, until he or she breaks from the norm and shows me he or she bears true sincere ethics and patriotism. Until he or she says "Not I, but you and I. Not I alone, but UnIty"

[Serephino]

Oh, god, yes, enough with the negative ads!  They started here a few weeks ago and I'm already ready to tear my hair out.  The two Democrats running for the district, I wanna kiss them because they aren't doing this.  There are a few tiny jabs here and there, but mostly the ads are about the candidate.  It was on the news they made some kind of pact.  They both now hold the two districts that are being combined into one.  They are not going to attack each other, and whoever loses the primary is going to support the winner because they want to see a Democrat keep the seat.  Yep, they're running against each other, but working together *gasp*

The Republicans need to be helped off a cliff, the both of them!  One started calling the other not conservative enough (apparently this is a huge issue and liberal has become a dirty word).  Then the other said oh yeah, if I'm so liberal why did he vote for Obama in the Presidential election?  That just blew me away.  Who one votes for is supposed to be their private business.  How can it be legal to announce on TV who someone else voted for?  Why does it seem the laws are just there for show?

[Callie Del Noire]

Oh, god, yes, enough with the negative ads!  They started here a few weeks ago and I'm already ready to tear my hair out.  The two Democrats running for the district, I wanna kiss them because they aren't doing this.  There are a few tiny jabs here and there, but mostly the ads are about the candidate.  It was on the news they made some kind of pact.  They both now hold the two districts that are being combined into one.  They are not going to attack each other, and whoever loses the primary is going to support the winner because they want to see a Democrat keep the seat.  Yep, they're running against each other, but working together *gasp*

The Republicans need to be helped off a cliff, the both of them!  One started calling the other not conservative enough (apparently this is a huge issue and liberal has become a dirty word).  Then the other said oh yeah, if I'm so liberal why did he vote for Obama in the Presidential election?  That just blew me away.  Who one votes for is supposed to be their private business.  How can it be legal to announce on TV who someone else voted for?  Why does it seem the laws are just there for show?

I figure around convention time in August you'll see what NASTY really is.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I hate to break it to my fellow Americans, but we're long past the time when voting actually changed anything...especially at the national level, and most of all for POTUS.

Any one running for POTUS who actually wanted to fundamentally change the system would be headed off before the election.  The media would be ordered to ignore them, or to portray the person as a radical.  There would be a "scandal."

If that didn't work, there's the Electoral College to head the person off with.  Remember President-Select Bush II?

And if somehow a person were to slip past all of this, get through Inauguration and then try and make changes, they'd be fishing his body out of the Potomac by the end of May.  An "accident," of course.  Anyone in a position to prove otherwise would also have an "accident." 

The corporations run this country.  They own it.  And they won't hesitate to dig a hole in the desert--while the media studiously look the other way--for anyone who poses a threat to their rule.  As Stalin said, it is enough that the people know there was an election.

[Callie Del Noire]

I hate to break it to my fellow Americans, but we're long past the time when voting actually changed anything...especially at the national level, and most of all for POTUS.

Any one running for POTUS who actually wanted to fundamentally change the system would be headed off before the election.  The media would be ordered to ignore them, or to portray the person as a radical.  There would be a "scandal."

If that didn't work, there's the Electoral College to head the person off with.  Remember President-Select Bush II?

And if somehow a person were to slip past all of this, get through Inauguration and then try and make changes, they'd be fishing his body out of the Potomac by the end of May.  An "accident," of course.  Anyone in a position to prove otherwise would also have an "accident." 

The corporations run this country.  They own it.  And they won't hesitate to dig a hole in the desert--while the media studiously look the other way--for anyone who poses a threat to their rule.  As Stalin said, it is enough that the people know there was an election.

Cyncial thought like that is why we're failing when other countries are regaining control of their systems. No control is total. The foundation of the oligarchy that you say is in place is cracking.

Where it goes from here, is entirely up to us. John Q. Public. You can give up. You can vote. You can inform yourself.

The reason I say that.. is I met an old black man who once told me that he felt similarly about the fight for civil rights. Till he met a black clergy man who opened his eyes. Hope is never gone so long as some pursue it. Even after the preacher who inspired him was killed in Mephis he believed that.

Yeah, the old man met MLK Jr. John, the old man, told me he learned a lot from that one meeting.

[TheGlyphstone]

I hate to break it to my fellow Americans, but we're long past the time when voting actually changed anything...especially at the national level, and most of all for POTUS.

Any one running for POTUS who actually wanted to fundamentally change the system would be headed off before the election.  The media would be ordered to ignore them, or to portray the person as a radical.  There would be a "scandal."

If that didn't work, there's the Electoral College to head the person off with.  Remember President-Select Bush II?

And if somehow a person were to slip past all of this, get through Inauguration and then try and make changes, they'd be fishing his body out of the Potomac by the end of May.  An "accident," of course.  Anyone in a position to prove otherwise would also have an "accident." 

The corporations run this country.  They own it.  And they won't hesitate to dig a hole in the desert--while the media studiously look the other way--for anyone who poses a threat to their rule.  As Stalin said, it is enough that the people know there was an election.

Presumably said corporations are run by a confederacy of Illuminati officials and ambassadors from the Lizard People? :P

[Serephino]

Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing.  Keep up that cynical attitude and nothing will ever change.  The 1% is outnumbered 99 to 1.  They are the American Aristocracy because the rest of us have become complacent.  Why do you think they're going after the education budget like piranhas after a cow when we're already behind?  The under educated, ignorant masses are little more than sheeple, never questioning authority.  That's why it was once a crime to educate a slave.   

[Missy]

I really don't go for the 'for the party' attitude either. Though it is possible there's another perspective on that. I mean it isn't a bad idea to support someone who shares your beliefs and ethics, but they talk about it like it's loyalty to the party. Which could be interpreted as loyalty to themselves and their own or a series of ethics which they share, depending on how you review it.

In any case I think above all else we need patriots in office, I would sooner vote for a son or daughter of a single parent who worked his or her way through college on whatever odd jobs he or she had to do than vote for another silverspoon born into inheritance. I'm not saying lawyers and the wealthy shan't be in office, but we have a serious issue of balance in our congress now. "We the people" meant all the people, not just the most 'well-off' to begin with.

I would concur that we're being run by an oligarchy in the modern era. However even the most absolute of monarchies rest upon the shoulders of the people. You merely have to piss them off, how else was it so that America was born?

If all else fails:
Riot -- Three Days Grace

Within legal limits of course, we have the power to shut down the country if we so desired.

[Callie Del Noire]

The problems I see with this massive attack on education is that the 'money' people are diminishing their own 'intellectual' capital. You have a grown disconnect between the vital information industry that requires a strong math/science foundation and we're not moving to maintain much less grow that foundation. We are ignoring 'native resources' and pulling outside 'intellectual capital' to fill the current shortfall. As the 'education implosion' of the US continues, we're leaving ourselves vulnerable. Sooner or later, these 'intellectual resources' , such as the MASSIVE IT support/Call Center/Data Processing networks in India that has been a source of outsourcing for both low paying call center jobs but accounting, programing, IT work, and such will diminish as the people involved start withdrawing and looking for ways to better their own personal conditions. That doesn't cover national interests changing, what will happen when your economic interests run counter to those of the country that is supporting your infrastructure?

Consider this.. IF the current outsourcing of some elements of IT and White Collar jobs continue because the 'shrinking' of the world allows companies to outsource things like accounting, elements of IT and such overseas to locations like China, India and so forth. China is one of the fastest growing technological countries.. India has a MASSIVE educated worker base that we rely on for a lot of business elements.

Why not grow your own tech base by supporting education? Well that is where American Industry and Businesses have failed. The success of American Business has been so long and so continuing that hubris has set in. Short term gains are largely the business of the day. We're, as a country are teetering on AA+ to AA credit rating, and without looking at our debt and infrastructure (HERE) issues we'll be continuing to fail.

Bluntly put, we need to tell business interests to stay out of government. At least to reduce the current level of influence, and accept that the rich and powerful will have to pay a bit more. Not the hideously massive 90%+ of some countries overseas but more than we are now. Downsizing government isn't the answer. The reduction of regulation has made a fairly self evident case against that. The energy industries in the 90s. The current and ongoing bank issues with the massive cases of fraud that CONTINUE to make a few well placed bankers money and everyone else hurts from it.

America is eating itself in a way, working to produce more and more profit from paperwork than actual production of services and/or goods. We have to break this incestuous hold between big money business and the governing structure. Appointing a man from Monsanto to run the FDA isn't perhaps the best idea, but here in the US it's 'good government'.

To enact the changes, we need to change the political culture of the parties. Right now that means we have to participate and interact. With the internet, it's easier to find information about the politicians. When I first started voting, back in the post-death of the fairness doctrine era of Ronald Reagan, you had to rely on the papers and tv stations.

Today.. you can google 'fact check politicians' and get 1.64 MILLION hits in less than a second. Politifact.com and Factcheck.org (the top 2 sites when I did that) both provide resources and links to back up a lot of their claims. Wikipedia provides a good.. (relative) timeline of how a lot of the signifigant figures do things.. typically with references as well.

You can find out the how, who and what of your local races with a few keystrokes. Most state governments provide online sites to tell you how to register, when the votes are being taken, and where. Some states are better than others (My personal experience with Florida and North Carolina has provided vastly different levels of ease)

Now granted my own PERSONAL outlook is that we need to build a level of separation between government and business. That has come from asking this question: 'What is could go wrong with letting the big people in a business community set the rules?' and then looking at what has happened. A good example of how this has screwed the public at large is the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act. The firewall between commercial and investment banks.

Without an active voter base looking, listening and VOTING, none of the changes we need will occur. Mark Twain made numerous comments about the (lack of) honesty of politicians. My take is this.. an honest politician is a WATCHED politician.

Growing up one of the books that had an impact on MY outlook on voting was Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein. I took away this about voting. Voting is both a privilege and a DUTY.  If you do a modicum reading and research, you can become better informed. Informing yourself is (in my opinion) part of that duty. Of course half my Apple TV queue is a lot of things like the Albright Center and Global Security forum lectures, so I know I'm not a 'typical voter'.

It, the political situation, will not change tomorrow. Or next year. Or the year after that. There is a lack of inertia in the system at the moment but if you (and everyone you can convince) continue to look, listen, communicate to your representatives, and MOST IMPORTANTLY VOTE.

Sitting around and bemoaning that 'my vote doesn't work' only reinforces the situation.

Rant done.

[Missy]

Good rant, no one is above criticism.

[Callie Del Noire]

Good rant, no one is above criticism.

Sorry about that.. but it has taken nearly forty years to get business so far into the pants of government, it won't fix itself in an election cycle. We need MASSIVE and WIDESPREAD reform on voting, campaign finance, regulatory wise.

[Missy]

No your fine. "A good politician is a watched politician", "no one is above criticism"

[Callie Del Noire]

No your fine. "A good politician is a watched politician", "no one is above criticism"

I have a lot of problems spotting the 'lesser' evil this time.

In one corner we have a rich man invester with lots of outlooks I dislike...

In the other we have a 'constitutional' scholar who has repeatedly raped (in my opinion) rights and due process for 'apparent security'.

[Missy]

"No one [including politicians] is above criticism"


I agree that as near as I can tell their aren't any really good options and it will take time to fix the system and make it functional as intended again.

[Callie Del Noire]

"No one [including politicians] is above criticism"


I agree that as near as I can tell their aren't any really good options and it will take time to fix the system and make it functional as intended again.

On the national level? Not anymore.. Ron Paul is the closest thing on the GOP side that strikes me as rational candidate..he's got 'warts' but who doesn't? The thing that worries me is this....

If President Obama gets elected this time around, who will the democrats back next time around? Four years out, I see ZERO rational candidates on the political horizon. We'll be back to the 'old school' politicians on both sides of things.

[Oniya]

Robert Reich was considering a third-party run this year, but held back because he didn't want to take votes from Obama.  I suspect he might go for it in 2016. 

[Sophronius]

Thing is.  The US vote at least is worse. The voters are the percentages of REGISTERED voters, not US Citzens ELIGIBLE to register to vote. Depending on the source you look at, only about HALF of the public bothers to register. Which means for example the 63% of the 2008 turn out is something like 31.1% in actuality. I helped to register voters in 2 of my commands and even in the military I'd say 1 in 3 hadn't bothered to register. EVER.

The apathetic attitude is the problem.  The people in charge get to stay in charge because people sit on their asses and whine, but don't go vote because their vote doesn't count.  This means that during an election year the candidates only have to charm enough people to win.  That's a very small percentage.  If there was a 68% voter turnout, that's only a percentage of people who actually bothered to register. 

And so, they charm just enough people, they get elected, then they do whatever the hell they want.  If they're lucky, they won't anger enough people to lose the next election.  The way things are going now, they usually don't.  If more people voted than elected officials might actually be held accountable; the way the system was meant to work. 

Voter turnout four years ago was 63% among elligible voters, not among registered voters.  Besides, if over 130 million people voted in the last US election and the US population is only a little over 310 million, that's already a little over 40% of the population.  And then when you take out minors, non-voting residents, and non-voting felons, I'm sure that 130 million is something like 63% of the elligible voting population.  And Wikipedia's source on the 63% number seems to be both a reputable study and actually says 63% of elligible, not registered, voters.

On an unrelated note, I don't understand why there is always so much drive to have third-parties run candidates for the presidency.  It would seem to make more sense to run third parties on local elections or at most state-wide elections.  I say this because it seems that there would be a much larger chance to actually win in these elections, given the smaller voting base and the greater ease with which one could both match the campaign finances and interact with individual voters.  And if there is, indeed, an actual chance for victory, third parties (well, third, fourth and fifth parties) could begin to build up some sense of credibility and begin drawing larger number of votes on a state-wide and finaly national stage.  But yeah, ultimately, I don't "get" third party runs for President.  It simply won't happen and makes, at least in my eyes, third parties look sort of crazy.

[Callie Del Noire]

Voter turnout four years ago was 63% among elligible voters, not among registered voters.  Besides, if over 130 million people voted in the last US election and the US population is only a little over 310 million, that's already a little over 40% of the population.  And then when you take out minors, non-voting residents, and non-voting felons, I'm sure that 130 million is something like 63% of the elligible voting population.  And Wikipedia's source on the 63% number seems to be both a reputable study and actually says 63% of elligible, not registered, voters.

On an unrelated note, I don't understand why there is always so much drive to have third-parties run candidates for the presidency.  It would seem to make more sense to run third parties on local elections or at most state-wide elections.  I say this because it seems that there would be a much larger chance to actually win in these elections, given the smaller voting base and the greater ease with which one could both match the campaign finances and interact with individual voters.  And if there is, indeed, an actual chance for victory, third parties (well, third, fourth and fifth parties) could begin to build up some sense of credibility and begin drawing larger number of votes on a state-wide and finaly national stage.  But yeah, ultimately, I don't "get" third party runs for President.  It simply won't happen and makes, at least in my eyes, third parties look sort of crazy.

Because of the short sighted outlook of their leadership and the members. They think they can do it all once and frustration builds up otherwise. The Tea Party was well on the way of falling apart due to that if they hadn't been hijacked by the GOP leadership and sponsors to build up their hold on the party.

[MasterMischief]

In the other we have a 'constitutional' scholar who has repeatedly raped (in my opinion) rights and due process for 'apparent security'.

Usually, a Republican sin.  Honestly, I think Obama has been far more centrist than he led on during his campaign.  Of course, that makes it more difficult to paint him as a crazy islamic socialist hell bent on destroying America.

Incidentally, I would like to do a drinking game where you have to take a shot every time someone says 'job killing' or 'failed policies'.

[TheGlyphstone]

Usually, a Republican sin.  Honestly, I think Obama has been far more centrist than he led on during his campaign.  Of course, that makes it more difficult to paint him as a crazy islamic socialist hell bent on destroying America.

Incidentally, I would like to do a drinking game where you have to take a shot every time someone says 'job killing' or 'failed policies'.

...you'd be dead of alcohol poisoning by the end of a presidential debate. Between either party.

[Callie Del Noire]

Usually, a Republican sin.  Honestly, I think Obama has been far more centrist than he led on during his campaign.  Of course, that makes it more difficult to paint him as a crazy islamic socialist hell bent on destroying America.

Incidentally, I would like to do a drinking game where you have to take a shot every time someone says 'job killing' or 'failed policies'.

Don't use Fox news for it.. you'll die!

[OldSchoolGamer]

The problems I see with this massive attack on education is that the 'money' people are diminishing their own 'intellectual' capital. You have a grown disconnect between the vital information industry that requires a strong math/science foundation and we're not moving to maintain much less grow that foundation. We are ignoring 'native resources' and pulling outside 'intellectual capital' to fill the current shortfall. As the 'education implosion' of the US continues, we're leaving ourselves vulnerable. Sooner or later, these 'intellectual resources' , such as the MASSIVE IT support/Call Center/Data Processing networks in India that has been a source of outsourcing for both low paying call center jobs but accounting, programing, IT work, and such will diminish as the people involved start withdrawing and looking for ways to better their own personal conditions. That doesn't cover national interests changing, what will happen when your economic interests run counter to those of the country that is supporting your infrastructure?

Consider this.. IF the current outsourcing of some elements of IT and White Collar jobs continue because the 'shrinking' of the world allows companies to outsource things like accounting, elements of IT and such overseas to locations like China, India and so forth. China is one of the fastest growing technological countries.. India has a MASSIVE educated worker base that we rely on for a lot of business elements.

All this is true.  The wealthy elite don't give a hoot.  They're not interested in the prosperity or sustainability of America.  They're looting and plundering this country.  And when they've stripped it bare, they'll move on to the next country...and Fox News will still be around to tell us all how liberals and unions drove the "job creators" out of the country.

[Etah dna Evol]

last time was 2008, but the homophobic rednecks got it passed anyway, thus ending my donations to any local charities).

If you are talking about Prop H8ate here in California is has been shown that the voter turnout that made the difference in passing Prop 8 are African America's who also voted for Obama.

Generally, relying on stereotypes is unhelpful in political and/or social analysis.

[Callie Del Noire]

That sums up my views a lot.. I'm just wanting 'fair play' and a 'representative' democracy/republic. When someone games the system (like the special interests have) we aren't working at our optimum peak.

[Etah dna Evol]

Actually a fair number of Americans are part of the international 1%.

In order to be part of the top 1% of all earners in the world, you need to make . . . . . $35,000.00 a year.

The problem with the Occupy kids is that they lack perspective. They don't understand the difference between poverty and not poverty. They think they are poor if they can't buy a latte in Starbucks and they think they are hungry if their stomachs are growling.

[Callie Del Noire]

Actually a fair number of Americans are part of the international 1%.

In order to be part of the top 1% of all earners in the world, you need to make . . . . . $35,000.00 a year.

The problem with the Occupy kids is that they lack perspective. They don't understand the difference between poverty and not poverty. They think they are poor if they can't buy a latte in Starbucks and they think they are hungry if their stomachs are growling.

Or like me they have to decided between gas, books, health insurance and food. I've had to go hat in hand to family two times because of issues with school. I have spent THREE years looking for a job in a field that used to be HUGE. I can't pay for heath insurance regularly and with my personal issues that's a problem yet I'm TOO healthy for medicare/caid/assistance. I am lucky that I like in a Tricare Prime zone and only have to cough up 300 bucks to get coverage and have a hospital nearby. What would I do if I lived with my folks where TC Prime isn't available.

My savings plan in the Navy lost NINETY PERCENT of it's value in a six week period because of the massive FRAUD that Wall Street CONTINUES to hide and deny. They passed high risk mortgage bonds they KNEW were bad.. pushed for legistlation to let them get less and less oversight and accountabilty..while pissing on their customers and clients, aside from the 'BIG BOYS'.

Deregulation is a powerword these days. I've seen industries that were strong and vital go tits up overnight because of ILL considered actions. NAFTA? It RUINED the economy of my home state... and when the inevitable ban on tabacco comes around I'm quite sure we'll see even more problems.

American Business Leadership is a joke. They don't plan anymore. It's not 'what we will have in place in 10 years.. it's how much I can make NEXT Quarter.'.

If we don't pull our business leadership's heads out of their collective ASSES.. in 10 to 20 years those third world nations providing our labor will be cutting us out of the process. China is already moving up and taking more and more out of the mix. And economically they are growing while we're producing less and less and the people in charge are cooking the books to ensure their plans are covered and their golden parachutes are in place.

[Oniya]

Or like me, and have had to decide between paying bills and eating - No health insurance, house foreclosed on, having to depend on the good graces of my family to have a roof over my head, and I'll still have collectors breathing down my neck.  There are no jobs that offer benefits - or even full time if they can avoid it.  The contract that I was working on hasn't terminated, but the hours have been down-sized, so guess what?  I can't claim unemployment, because my 'job' still exists - I just don't have anything to do, and I don't get paid unless they send me something to work on.

The Occupy movement isn't just 'kids'.  They aren't fighting for the right to a night at the opera.  They're fighting because we have more vacant houses due to foreclosures than we have homeless families. 

[Etah dna Evol]

Or like me they have to decided between gas, books, health insurance and food. I've had to go hat in hand to family two times because of issues with school.

Believe me, I'm in the same boat as you

I am lucky that I like in a Tricare Prime zone and only have to cough up 300 bucks to get coverage and have a hospital nearby. What would I do if I lived with my folks where TC Prime isn't available.

Tricare Remote

I understand your concerns and they are legitimate. But you're only seeing one side of the picture. Deregulation is an issue, but so is over regulation. It's been proven that businesses have been trained to make risky investments because if they fuck up, they can just expect another government bail out.

Our problem with outsourcing is because we have a toxic business environment here in America. Our Capital Gains (twice taxed money) is one of the highest in the world and discourages investments, we over-regulate factories (building and purchasing of equipment) and we over regulate and over tax other areas of business as well. We have simply made outsourcing profitable and cost saving while we have turned Americans from inventors, producers and hard workers into self-entitled whiners.

Americans in general don't feel they should have to do anything to be successful. They want it handed to them. Corruption exists everywhere and always has, America has always prospered in spite of, or sometimes because of, corruption. What will be the death of Americas exceptional place in the world and history, is sheer laziness.

Or like me, and have had to decide between paying bills and eating - No health insurance, house foreclosed on, having to depend on the good graces of my family to have a roof over my head, and I'll still have collectors breathing down my neck.  There are no jobs that offer benefits - or even full time if they can avoid it.  The contract that I was working on hasn't terminated, but the hours have been down-sized, so guess what?  I can't claim unemployment, because my 'job' still exists - I just don't have anything to do, and I don't get paid unless they send me something to work on.

The Occupy movement isn't just 'kids'.  They aren't fighting for the right to a night at the opera.  They're fighting because we have more vacant houses due to foreclosures than we have homeless families. 

Like I said, there is merit to the argument of corruption in American business and politics. But there is also an element of blame. We as a country no longer take responsibility for ourselves, all the things that happen to us become someone elses fault. This is the new America. I think that it is likely that bad or risky decisions had a hand in the events that led to your current crisis.

I also wonder if you go unemployed because you are too prideful to be "under employed." That is part of Americans current attitude of entitlement. You didn't buy a house you couldn't afford, the mean man took it from you (cause you couldn't/didn't pay your mortgage). You aren't employed because you are under qualified or because you are unwilling to work at McDonald's to pay your bills, it's the job market. etc.

I am not speaking about you personally because I have no idea who you are. Your circumstances may be totally different, but I expect they are not.

I also want to mention that the "Occupy Movement" is a tool for the Democrats who created many of the conditions that led to the slowdown in the job market. If the world is a stage, than the Occupy Movement are puppets and the Democrats, their puppet masters (the situation is similar between the Republican Party and the "Tea Party," but in that situation the "Tea Party" is sometimes the puppet master and the Republicans the puppet)

[Oniya]

I also wonder if you go unemployed because you are too prideful to be "under employed." That is part of Americans current attitude of entitlement. You didn't buy a house you couldn't afford, the mean man took it from you (cause you couldn't/didn't pay your mortgage). You aren't employed because you are under qualified or because you are unwilling to work at McDonald's to pay your bills, it's the job market. etc.

I am not speaking about you personally because I have no idea who you are. Your circumstances may be totally different, but I expect they are not.

Actually, at the time that we bought our house, we could afford the mortgage, and rather easily - until the contract dried up.  We were even paying extra on our principle every month - how about that!?  Mr. Oniya has applied at everything from burger-flipping to retail management, and has found that he's either 'overqualified', or that the paycheck would be completely (if not more than completely) eaten up by gas.  There was one job he had to quit because he realized he was actually paying (in gas costs) to work.  Work in my field is non-existent in the rural area we're in, not to mention that we had one car, a school-aged child, and (until a week ago) a roommate who had numerous doctor and legal appointments to keep for a Worker's Compensation case.  In the new place, I'm within walking distance of a hospital, where I hope to get clerical work, and we've got several retail centers that won't eat up the gas budget, whether he's working stockroom or management.

[Callie Del Noire]

Our problem with outsourcing is because we have a toxic business environment here in America. Our Capital Gains (twice taxed money) is one of the highest in the world and discourages investments, we over-regulate factories (building and purchasing of equipment) and we over regulate and over tax other areas of business as well. We have simply made outsourcing profitable and cost saving while we have turned Americans from inventors, producers and hard workers into self-entitled whiners.

Americans in general don't feel they should have to do anything to be successful. They want it handed to them. Corruption exists everywhere and always has, America has always prospered in spite of, or sometimes because of, corruption. What will be the death of Americas exceptional place in the world and history, is sheer laziness.

Like I said, there is merit to the argument of corruption in American business and politics. But there is also an element of blame. We as a country no longer take responsibility for ourselves, all the things that happen to us become someone elses fault. This is the new America. I think that it is likely that bad or risky decisions had a hand in the events that led to your current crisis.

I also wonder if you go unemployed because you are too prideful to be "under employed." That is part of Americans current attitude of entitlement. You didn't buy a house you couldn't afford, the mean man took it from you (cause you couldn't/didn't pay your mortgage). You aren't employed because you are under qualified or because you are unwilling to work at McDonald's to pay your bills, it's the job market. etc.

I am not speaking about you personally because I have no idea who you are. Your circumstances may be totally different, but I expect they are not.

I also want to mention that the "Occupy Movement" is a tool for the Democrats who created many of the conditions that led to the slowdown in the job market. If the world is a stage, than the Occupy Movement are puppets and the Democrats, their puppet masters (the situation is similar between the Republican Party and the "Tea Party," but in that situation the "Tea Party" is sometimes the puppet master and the Republicans the puppet)

Okay..let's see..

The tea party is a puppet.. but it's not the GOP holding the strings but backers like the Koch Brothers doing it. I think it's a case of the movement getting hijacked by their cash.

As for the workers being described as 'self-entitled whiners' I take umbrage at that. We have a corporate tax system in place that is too high, unless you're a company with connections in place that lets you get tax breaks for hiding cash overseas, outsourcing, and moving out of country. Example.. GE moved 20,000 jobs out of the country in 2009, and made a net payment of -3.9 BILLION in taxes in 2010.. yes, they got a tax CREDIT for the year.  AGAIN. Creative accounting, convenient bank loopholes and massive cronyism at work.

Let's take a look at the progression in pay between the average worker and average exec. Most telling is the HUGE increase in pay for executives while there is barely increase on the worker side.

Me? I think if we're going to let companies hide their case and not pay their dues.. why not make it so that they do it to the BENEFIT of the domestic economy. Give breaks for R&D, 'insourcing' jobs and such into the country rather than outsourcing, crediting redevelopment and expanding your domestic infrastructure. Make it profitable to invest in the god damn country again. And there is plenty of manufacturing methods that can make production here in the US profitable, lean management techniques smaller shipping radius and such have shown that anyone willing to work new methods can not only profit but thrive in the current market.

Too much of the business leadership in the country are followers of Gordon Gecko's 'greed is good' school of stupidity. The surge to 'deregulate' has hurt us in many ways. You got people running office saying that OSHA, the Department of Labor and other regulatory agencies need to be done away with. Looking over the last decade, I say no.

Personally I think the role of government in business is to provide a foundation and set of rules on what can and can't be done in business.  Regulation isn't bad automatically. If we hadn't repealed the Glass-Stegall act, we might not have gone as long with those toxic mortgage bonds bouncing around the Wall Street regions. Which was a fraud...and yet no one has been prosecuted yet.

Here is an interesting take on the 'high end' corporate taxes that get paid. (or not)http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/apr/10/tax-evaders-wall-shame/

As for capital gains.. I think that we should return to the level Ronnie Reagan had them at. Clearly the ultra-rich are the only ones who aren't hurting.. why not tax them a little? We're not not taxing them at the rate that .. oh say the English are doing it. Mitt Romney is paying what.. 12% whereas folks in his tax range in the UK would have to work longer/harder to not pay much much higher.

[Etah dna Evol]

Actually, . . . . .

Like I said, I am not claiming intimate knowledge of your personal life story. But most of what you have said (house, job etc.) I have heard before and many times there has been a lack of personal responsibility involved.

Okay..let's see..

I think it's a case of the movement getting hijacked by their cash.

I agree.

AGAIN. Creative accounting, convenient bank loopholes and massive cronyism at work.

Part of this issue is a tax code whose pages number in the 10's of thousands. Only large corporations and the very wealthy can afford professionals that can interpret and exploit loopholes in the tax code.

Let's take a look at the progression in pay between the average worker and average exec. Most telling is the HUGE increase in pay for executives while there is barely increase on the worker side.

This is an issue, but I don't feel it is an issue government regulation can or should address.

Give breaks for R&D, 'insourcing' jobs and such into the country rather than outsourcing, crediting redevelopment and expanding your domestic infrastructure. Make it profitable to invest in the god damn country again.

Fuck yes! But first we need politicians to write and propose these laws that aren't in the pocket of the multinationals.

Personally I think the role of government in business is to provide a foundation and set of rules on what can and can't be done in business.  Regulation isn't bad automatically.

I agree. I would go so far as to say under-regulation would be a bad thing, the mortgage bubble speaks to that. But over-regulation can be worse. We have to find a happy middle ground.

Clearly the ultra-rich are the only ones who aren't hurting.. why not tax them a little? We're not not taxing them at the rate that .. oh say the English are doing it.

Because taxing investments heavily, simply discourages investments. Why would I keep my money in the United States if it is that countries intention of raping my profit margin. I can simply shift my money overseas, taking along with it jobs Americans desperately need.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Presumably said corporations are run by a confederacy of Illuminati officials and ambassadors from the Lizard People? :P

No.  A few Old World wealthy families who leveraged discipline, family loyalties, compound interest and a fair amount of luck.

[Oniya]

Like I said, I am not claiming intimate knowledge of your personal life story. But most of what you have said (house, job etc.) I have heard before and many times there has been a lack of personal responsibility involved.

No, but you followed that statement up with

Your circumstances may be totally different, but I expect they are not.

You were fine up until the 'but'.  I regret to inform you that I don't live down to your 'expectations.'

[gaggedLouise]

Corruption exists everywhere and always has, America has always prospered in spite of, or sometimes because of, corruption

(my italics)

Certainly throws some light on why the Mob has prospered in the U.S. for a hundred years and why it has tended to become tightly involved with business on all levels - robbing banks and shops long since became secondary to actually cooperating with them behind the scene and making oneself indispensable to them, in the way the crooks and their cronies want these businesses to function. As Lucky Luciano put it, speaking of the final years of his U.S. prison term in the mid-forties: "We hadda get our business /the Mob/ in order now that the end of the war was coming into view: soon the country would be switching back to peacetime economy and us guys needed to be right back  in place when that was happening, so it'd all function properly."


No, I am not surprised some people view organized crime and wheelie-dealing as more accountable and easier to live with than any aspirations to a fair social contract.

[Etah dna Evol]

America was founded by mobs. Samuel Adam's Son's of Liberty were pretty much the colonial equivalent of a biker gang. Most people don't realize that the Sons of Liberty provoked the Boston Massacre. But corruption is certainly not America's sole domain. Corruption has been everywhere, in every age, the only question is the degree of influence the country has. America has more influence than nearly every country on the planet and its an easy target for charges of corruption, that are ultimately hypocritical.

[Callie Del Noire]

America was founded by mobs. Samuel Adam's Son's of Liberty were pretty much the colonial equivalent of a biker gang. Most people don't realize that the Sons of Liberty provoked the Boston Massacre. But corruption is certainly not America's sole domain. Corruption has been everywhere, in every age, the only question is the degree of influence the country has. America has more influence than nearly every country on the planet and its an easy target for charges of corruption, that are ultimately hypocritical.

So, you're saying we should simply roll over and bare our collective belly to the world because it's ALWAYS been that way?

[gaggedLouise]

So, you're saying we should simply roll over and bare our collective belly to the world because it's ALWAYS been that way?

Since the idea is that mobs and corruption exist (and flourish) everywhere as a fact of human nature, the corollary point seems to be that everyone should be grateful that America has become infested by mobs since it began. Even when they are not generally known and recognized as mobs: a parasite is the most successful when it manages to pass itself off as a natural part of its host creature.

But corruption, mob rule and I-scratch-your-back... aren't partricularly complicated inventions, so if they become more powerful in other countries, like Russia or China, and those countries rise high and eventually push the U.S. out of every corner - as Etah is saying is already happening - then who's got a right to complain about that anyway?

[gaggedLouise]

America was founded by mobs. Samuel Adam's Son's of Liberty were pretty much the colonial equivalent of a biker gang. Most people don't realize that the Sons of Liberty provoked the Boston Massacre.

I presume you meant to refer to the Boston Tea Party, not the 1770 shooting?

And there's some difference between a biker gang who are simply looting and killing to sustain their own lifestyle, or to keep up their inflow of drugs, cash and booze, and on the other hand a resistance movement engaging in selected acts of violence and obstruction against the authorities because they want to undermine the effective legitimacy of those ruling guys - not just write small leaflets saying the legitimacy and/or honesty of those leaders, the occupying power etc is in question. Occasionally those acts of resistance strike against businessmen and other locals who are trading with the authorities, but those people are not the primary target: if your own native guys, most of them, were the main butts of the struggle, the movement would soon lose its own backing among the local people.

[Etah dna Evol]

So, you're saying we should simply roll over and bare our collective belly to the world because it's ALWAYS been that way?

When you display an argument superficially similar to mine, but is easier to beat, that is called a straw man and that is what you are trying to set me up for.

words

I hate anthropological terms. I read SCOTUS rulings for kicks but I only have a very vague idea of what you just said.

I presume you meant to refer to the Boston Tea Party, not the 1770 shooting?

You presume incorrect. There is a pretty large corollary between the Occupy Movement and the Sons of Liberty. Today, a tactic Occupy types use is that they goad police until they can't fucking take it, so the Occupy kids can have their 30 second video clip of police using excessive force. That is basically what the Son's of Liberty (and others) did to British Troops and caused what we now know as the Boston Massacre. FYI If you google this later on, the Son's of Liberty are also called the Massachusetts Radicals.

[gaggedLouise]

I read SCOTUS rulings for kicks but I only have a very vague idea of what you just said.

Who do you think you're kidding?

[Callie Del Noire]

When you display an argument superficially similar to mine, but is easier to beat, that is called a straw man and that is what you are trying to set me up for.

I hate anthropological terms. I read SCOTUS rulings for kicks but I only have a very vague idea of what you just said.

You presume incorrect. There is a pretty large corollary between the Occupy Movement and the Sons of Liberty. Today, a tactic Occupy types use is that they goad police until they can't fucking take it, so the Occupy kids can have their 30 second video clip of police using excessive force. That is basically what the Son's of Liberty (and others) did to British Troops and caused what we now know as the Boston Massacre. FYI If you google this later on, the Son's of Liberty are also called the Massachusetts Radicals.

You seem to infer that we shouldn't try/care or try to change things. That was why I somewhat sarcastically posted what I did. If we don't inform ourselves, speak up and do our part, we assist the status quo.

[Oniya]

When you display an argument superficially similar to mine, but is easier to beat, that is called a straw man and that is what you are trying to set me up for.

I hate anthropological terms. I read SCOTUS rulings for kicks but I only have a very vague idea of what you just said.

You presume incorrect. There is a pretty large corollary between the Occupy Movement and the Sons of Liberty. Today, a tactic Occupy types use is that they goad police until they can't fucking take it, so the Occupy kids can have their 30 second video clip of police using excessive force. That is basically what the Son's of Liberty (and others) did to British Troops and caused what we now know as the Boston Massacre. FYI If you google this later on, the Son's of Liberty are also called the Massachusetts Radicals.

I'm not so certain that the Sons of Liberty as a united group were specifically involved in the Boston Massacre.  Reports are that it started with 'young men' throwing iced snowballs at the soldiers, and when the church bells started ringing, the grown men came out with sticks, stones, and clubs.  The description of the crowd goading (actually, threatening is a better word) the British soldiers until they were in fear of their lives and somebody (of unknown sympathies) let off a shot is accurate, though.

[Etah dna Evol]

Who do you think you're kidding?

Ad hominem's are a logical fallacy.

BTW What I meant was, you seem to use fancy language and esoteric terms to make yourself sound smarter, but they really just confuse your argument. I have no doubt you are intelligent, but if you want your ideas to come across better use clearer written text.

You seem to infer that we shouldn't try/care or try to change things. That was why I somewhat sarcastically posted what I did. If we don't inform ourselves, speak up and do our part, we assist the status quo.

I apologize, I misunderstood you. I am not saying we should accept corruptions existence because corruption has always existed. I am saying that to call the United States especially corrupt or more corrupt than it has been before is an unhelpful exaggeration. We cannot work on fixing actual corruption if we are chasing bogymen.

[OldSchoolGamer]

This is an issue, but I don't feel it is an issue government regulation can or should address.

Then it will be addressed in the streets.  America is already at the level of wealth disparity between the Haves and Have-nots that historically destabilizes the society and leads to violent social and political change.  And we're getting worse.

We need a more progressive tax code, and to return to the pattern of wealth distribution we had in 1970 or so.

[Etah dna Evol]

Then it will be addressed in the streets.  America is already at the level of wealth disparity between the Haves and Have-nots that historically destabilizes the society and leads to violent social and political change.  And we're getting worse.

We need a more progressive tax code, and to return to the pattern of wealth distribution we had in 1970 or so.

Wealth redistribution is not and never will be the answer. America is not a pseudo-socialist European country with rationed healthcare and 50% tax rates. None of those countries are producers, none of those countries are inventors. None of those countries are exceptional the same way that America is exceptional.

and we are not going to destabilize. We are the richest country in the fuckin world. Our middle class live like kings compared to the rest of the world. The reason people are having these catastrophic thoughts is simply a lack of perspective. The average Egyptian family eats meat once a month,  because that's all they can afford. In America, all but a very few live like fuckin Kings.

and each and every one of us through hard work and a little bit of luck can improve our station in life.

[Callie Del Noire]

Wealth redistribution is not and never will be the answer. America is not a pseudo-socialist European country with rationed healthcare and 50% tax rates. None of those countries are producers, none of those countries are inventors. None of those countries are exceptional the same way that America is exceptional and we are not going to destabilize. We are the richest country in the fuckin world. Our middle class live like kings compared to the rest of the world. The reason people are having these catastrophic thoughts is simply a lack of perspective. The average Egyptian family eats meat once a month,  because that's all they can afford. In America, all but a very few live like fuckin Kings.

and each and every one of us through hard work and a little bit of luck can improve our station in life.

I beg to differ..

I've lived in Europe, serveral times and places. I've been part of Europe pre EU and Post. You say that they aren't productive. You're mistaken. Take a look at Airbus, that company works hard and has a MASSIVE support system. Hell they manufacture components in different contries and still produce a product comparable to ours. The Europeans live pretty damn good, I had enough of them for neighbors to put the lie to that assertion. And in many ways I felt safer there than here. Particularly in the food and health areas.

As for American exceptionalism. Even if it exists.. corporate greed and short sightedness is smothering the next generation of that. Right now I don't see any innovations coming down the pipe.. in fact I see a LOT of attempts to smother anything new or innovative that the established businesses don't like.

The writer's strike back in 08? A large part of it was a mere .03% increase in royalties. From a group that was INFAMOUS for cookign the books and hiding their profits. They are racking in massive profits online and on demand sales and don't want to share it with their creative talent. The studios (video and audio) want to keep the system they've had in place for decades and not update it. Hell got a smartphone, ipod or other music player more advanced than a cd player? If the Music studios had their way you wouldn't be able to lisence to digital music at all. (American studios tried to BAN early MP3 players.. but then they also tried to ban VCRs, DVRs, Tape Recorders, the list goes on)

So I would argue the greedy 1% is stifling innovation. Look at SOPA/PIPA/CISPA, if these were passed things like YouTube, Hulu, iTunes would have never been able to get off the ground. There is a difference between protecting your property and stifling innovation and change. Did you know that Happy Birthday is copyrighted till 2030? And if media groups had there way? It would NEVER enter public domain. You'd have to potentially pay the owners if you taped and posted your grandkid singing it on YouTube. How is that exceptional and innovative? I'll give you it's damn creative to charge outrageous amounts for a song that was copied off another (substitute 'Good Morning' for 'Happy Birthday' and you get ALL the differences). But hey.. we got to protect the LLC that bought the copyright.

American Innovation comes from a strong education system.. which we definitely don't have, culturing an enviroment where businesses are encouraged to research.. which we no longer do (used to give tax breaks..but those went away in the 70s) and coming together, which we aren't. Right now we're more divided and partisan than we've been in a LONG time.

You've got the working class and middle class, who have gotten ROYALLY boned and the entitled upper class. Who are getting more and more of the pie and sharing fuck all of it. And changing the rules to protect and hide their share.

Be honest, we're about 10 years from a really nasty break if things don't change. The schism between the guys runnign the company and the guys on the floor doing the work have literally NEVER been bigger. You get guys who litterally get HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS for pissing away their market share, losing business, screwing up by the numbers and bankrupting their own company while the guy doing the work gets less and less. Because if he complains, he can get fired and replaced by someone younger and cheaper. Loyalty isnt' being rewarded.

My dad worked for Levi Strauss, till some Master of Business Atrocities decided that everyone over 50 in his division or had more than 20 years with the company had to go for one reason or another (basically they wanted them gone to save dollars). In his case it came back to bite them in the ass because when they got rid of all those quality assurance people without having talent to replace it. There was literally NO ONE under 35 able to do his job. The schooling and training weren't there anymore. (Another miracle of 'American education') In the end the company wound up paying through the nose as he came back as a consultant.

If American industry was 'exceptional', you'd have special interests looking into getting the R&D tax break reinstated or find ways to get encouraged to invest in domestic markets. Instead they push through loopholes for hiding their cash outside the country or getting rewarded for outsourcing.

A lot of people don't realize more than 'stupid grunt work' and call center jobs. Accounting divisions and tech jobs are getting outsource, you know the jobs that are supposed to 'replace the low paying factory jobs'. Which we can't fill because.. that's right.. education here sucks.

We're stagnant, run by the greedy and they are finally over reaching. You watch. We can either reform.. or sooner or later we will see things like the Arab Spring here.

Capitalism should be equal.. not only for the established businesses. It's harder today for me to get a job than it was before I went into service, despite having a degree, the training equivalent to another degree and a THIRD one on the way..as well as a history of security clearances and such. I should be beating recruiters off with a stick.. not getting 'We want you to do $30.00/hour jobs for $18.00/hour for at most 30 hours a week'..cause the companies don't want to do health coverage. I got one 'offer' to do avionics work.. onsite for 12.00/hour with a +10/hour if I move more than 100 miles off site.. (the 10 an hour extra was AFTER I clocked in on the remote site and fyi.. my transit was out of MY POCKET).

Clearly the redistribution of weath isnt' the proper thing.. but increasing salary for someone beside the executives is needed. I literally have not gotten a living wage offer for my job skills. There should be more to business than crunching the most cash out of every possible corner for this quarter and ensuring the guys at the top get ungodly bonuses while everyone else is shorted.

My dad had a job that he could raise a family of three boys and a wife on without her working when I was a kid, by the time we got back from Europe.. for 2 boys and my mom.. she had to work. Full time. Now adays.. aside from my older brother, everyone I know has two full time earners in their family. Face it.. for most of the country, we're working more, longer, harder for less buying power.

[Etah dna Evol]

American Innovation comes from a strong education system.. which we definitely don't have,

I disagree with that statement. Our primary and secondary education system are terrible, but our universities are world class.

Be honest, we're about 10 years from a really nasty break if things don't change. The schism between the guys runnign the company and the guys on the floor doing the work have literally NEVER been bigger.

There isn't gonna be a revolution or anything like that. If we wanna change things we vote dumb fucks out of office and if we want to change the model of business we have to find ways to make the way they conduct business unprofitable.

Capitalism should be equal..

True capitalism means unchecked free markets. It's a terrible idea and wouldn't be anywhere near equal.

[Oniya]

There isn't gonna be a revolution or anything like that. If we wanna change things we vote dumb fucks out of office and if we want to change the model of business we have to find ways to make the way they conduct business unprofitable.

Who would you vote in, and what would you change?

[Etah dna Evol]

Who would you vote in, and what would you change?

People who know how to count, are not ideologues and who understand that compromise is not only a political reality but a positive step in seeking pragmatic solutions.

The only way I can see changing the industries standard without excessive government regulation is for the American consumer to throw their weight around and only use companies who display best practices. That would be a worthy goal for the OWS movement.

[gaggedLouise]

Please expand on "display best practices", Etah (I am singling that one out because it's the only one of your suggestions that looks somehow specific: something like "vote in those people that got some brains" could mean almost any kind of policy). What kind of practices, and from whose point of view? Sterling technology at good prices - or at rather higher prices "because that's what it takes", and to make customers feel exclusive? Excellent service? The best storefronts? Or is it "those who sell only truly home soil made stuff"?

How about: the companies being willing to stick to standards that make sure their customers will not always have to check for every new piece to see if it works together with what they already have and won't or cannot discard - because they're not going to exchange the entire setup of let's say their home desktop or their "music corner"? With tv sets, tv reception boxes, modems and tablets - like it or not, everyone has tv sets, online connected phones and handsets these days, and use them for sensible reasons, for getting information and for work, not just for playing games - it's become an issue already. No one can take it for granted today that the new one he buys for hundreds of bucks will connect to the ones he has, the way he wants it to, or that there is even any bit of legit wiring in the market that will let them connect without paying a thousand more.

And home tech companies today are not good at offering service or spare parts over a long time. I think it's reasonable that if you buy a new printer or a pc you should be able to get service and spare parts on it for at least ten years - remember, it doesn't have to be in continuous everyday use - and the guys who produced the machine should assist in keeping the service chain going, but today that's not how it works. If the printer you bought four years ago, and which has been a reliable workhorse, breaks down you may well have to buy a new model, because the one particular part or the software you want are not around. And the new printer may not be able to run together with the machines you have sitting around - old OS's, wrong kind of plugs and so on. From the point of view of HP that's great, they get to sell more and at a higher rate. To the consumer it's greedy idiocy.

It's not a given thing that companies provide common standards - size formats, plugging, maintenance tags, and so on - to assure that their products can work together and make an open market. To those of us who buy their stuff it's often essential though, and you can't just stand around making a half-hour long interview with the junior sales clerk in the shop on every piece you're considering buying. Some companies might feel that it's none of their business to assure compatibility of course.

A company like Apple famously gets along with having its products nearly only connect to other Apple stuff; it works because they have a fanatically loyal customer base. But most of us want to be able to know, after posing at most two or three questions and looking through the specs sheet, whether the new machine, the new car part, the new radio will connect to the other stuff we have. So, is that kind of good will, decency and accountability towards the buyer part of what you mean by "displaying best practices"?


Another question. America - and the developed world in general - has long seen itself as having a huge middle class where everyone who had the goods behind the frontal skullbone and was willing to work and plan ahead could enter and raise a family. But over the last few decades, those conditions seem to be wearing thin: it's not just individual families "spending in an unwise way" but a middle class itself getting eaten thin by lack of work and rocketing costs for housing, cars and gas, education and studying loans/fees that have to be paid back, and for keeping a home going. As Callie pointed out, his dad (in the fifties-sixties I reckon) was able to sustain a family with three kids on just one wage, his own, and it wasn't a CEO's or faculty professor's wage. Today, every family that wants to make it, live decently and raise kids has to have two main earners, unless they have an inherited fortune. As soon as one of them is out of work or suffers a major paycut, the foundations of their economy come under a looming threat. (I can vouch for the truth of what he says, in the sixties, long before I was born, my grandfather and my uncles were the only people working for pay in their families but they could afford double cars, spacious homes and gardens, and raising kids). This plainly means that overall, most things and services have become more expensive and mainstream wages have not been able to keep up.

Do you see "everybody who's got a decent will to work hard and the mean amount of brains belong in the middle classes" as a viable aspiration? As realistic, today? Or was it never really true in your opinion, just a pipe dream buoyed on an inflated surplus of money and production and politicians willing to exploit that advantage?

[Callie Del Noire]

People who know how to count, are not ideologues and who understand that compromise is not only a political reality but a positive step in seeking pragmatic solutions.

The only way I can see changing the industries standard without excessive government regulation is for the American consumer to throw their weight around and only use companies who display best practices. That would be a worthy goal for the OWS movement.

Annnnd.. Bullshit. Calling that one. There has been a diminishing amount of regulation and enforcement in the meatpacking industry in the last 40 years.  It went from being an industry that you could make money on and be reasonably healthy about to an industry rife with problems. The Mad Cow outbreak came from practices that were put in place in the last half century. In the US, if I was a terrorist wanting to put a REAL hurting on the country, there are about a dozen processing plants that over 80% of the meat in this country go through. The 'open market' you say works better WITHOUT regulation has provided us with what.. a dozen major outbreaks in the last ten years?

And then there is the organic movement, who are CONSTANTLY under fire for one reason or another by the big meat producers. The push to inject hormones into animals, grow them in ways to maximize the amount of weight in the least amount of time. Regardless of if it is GOOD meat that comes out of the process. We let the food industry here set the rules, despite constant evidence to the contrary that their 'self interest' won't over rule their regard for the public. Hell, they don't like the idea 'organic' and 'BGH-Free' labels on food. You speak out against them, regardless of the truth of your statements, and they pull you into the courts and hammer you flat.

I disagree with that statement. Our primary and secondary education system are terrible, but our universities are world class.

And pray tell, when our domestic students can't qualify for those colleges and universities because they don't have the basic skills to learn from them? You can't say 'College/Universities are top tier' when you don't prepare your own domestic pool of students to do the basic essential skills. We don't teach them anymore..we teach the god-damn standardized tests. I'm the product of self-education in a lot of ways. I have seen a decreasing skill base and how it effects the airmen that came to work for me. I was a bit older than most of my fellow students when I went in, and had learned a lot of things on my own.

By the time I was medically retired fifteen years later, the knowledge base of the airmen coming out the 'revised' schools weren't as flexible. They had to learn more and more on the ground from me and the older workers to get up to speed as essential elements had been pruned from the circulumn. Hell, entire sections of the advancement test were not taught in the rate training school and we had to site down with the NEETS manuals to train our airmen just so they could advance. When I went through A-school, I was given the equivalent of an AS in electronics (minus about 20 hours of credits) in a 8 month period. Now the students are sent through in half the time with less coverage in theory and the foundations.

There isn't gonna be a revolution or anything like that. If we wanna change things we vote dumb fucks out of office and if we want to change the model of business we have to find ways to make the way they conduct business unprofitable.

You know what I learned from my brother running for office? Why the fuck would anyone with two licks of sense run for office? He was pushed for YEARS by the GOP back home to run for office.. and when he did, because it wasn't some little office that had little effect, the same folks who pushed him for so long attacked him. He is a trial lawyer, who do you think he supports in his donations? The judges he knows how to play and has a good foundation with or some unknown? Yet that earned him a 'carpet bagger' name.. despite the fact that he grew up in the state. He pushed forward a measure that saved MILLIONS for the state residents, despite a lack of response on either party, and who claimed the credit? The Johnny-come lately 'friend' who told him he wsn't going to run for the office? I read the statements on my brother's site an the guy who got the party nomination. The word Plagarism comes to mind. It wasn't LIKE his statement of intent to run.. it WAS his statement in several areas literally.

Add in the media. Have you done something stupid as a kid? Are you the same person you were half a life time ago? Do you have different outlooks? Does your significant other have problems? Does your brother(s) do something that isn't in line with your stated views? Did you do somethign then that could spun into something else now?

No wonder 'smart men' like Colin Powell, who I think would be an EXCELLENT president, won't run. His wife has some serious issues.. she'd never handle the loving scrutiny of the media. Everyone has feet of clay, you all have THAT day where you said the 'N-word' or did something in anger. Or god forbid you're White and Southern and have friend in middle/high school that you've not seen in 30 years and is a career racist/meth dealer.

The media brought down a president.. and were denied the impeachment. And have been trying ever since to get another ever since. One of my comments that gets a lot of my airmen thinking was.. that there has been no president since Kennedy was shot who met the measure of the media..and since Nixon there has always been a '-gate'  thing that the other side saw as a need to impeach. Funnily enough, from what my mother told me had JFK run for office the day before he went into Daley Plaza the odds were against him getting reelected. He had, through his brother Bobby, alienated LBJ and that could have easily cost him a LOT of the South.

True capitalism means unchecked free markets. It's a terrible idea and wouldn't be anywhere near equal.

And yet, unchecked free and UNREGULATED markets are what you seem to want. Right now without any outside oversight. It doesn't work now.. why would LESS rules make things more fair? We need to increase the power of the EPA and FDA to push back abuses we have now. You know why we have spills and tainted food? Cost Benefit ratios.. is the fine going to be less than paying to put in better measures? Can the company spend less money to get special lobbyists to impede/delay investigations till the outcry can be managed. Can the company's legal team delay things till the suing groups run out of money?

We need fair and SAFE markets. We don't have either. It comes down to the folks on top having the money to buy influence.

"In order to achieve the wildest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals and individuals alone. I see no reason for labor unions--or corporations-- to participate in politics. Both were created for economic purposes and their activities should be restricted accordingly."
-Barry Goldwater, Conscience of a Conservative.

Barry Goldwater said that.. in 1960! He summed up the best way to ensure that the government regulates properly. Take the influence out of the mix. I don't agree with everything he says.. but then you rarely parallel everything anyone else says.

We have too many influence makers, too many authoritative personalities in political leadership roles (they make good military leaders..but not political leaders), way too much 'buying' of leadership.

You want an example of how this mass of cronyism is impeding things? I can tell your right NOW how to fix a HUGE chunk of the post offices federal government over runs that they have to 'eat' every damn day.

Free postage. Make each department, division, and politician pay their own DAMN postage. It won't fix the problem... but it will show where a LOT of the cost issues come from. Let the postmaster general consult with lean management types to streamline the delivery process and thin out some of the congestion of the system. We're operating the same ..the VERY same system that was in place during the Eisenhower administration for the most part.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Wealth redistribution is not and never will be the answer. America is not a pseudo-socialist European country with rationed healthcare and 50% tax rates. None of those countries are producers, none of those countries are inventors. None of those countries are exceptional the same way that America is exceptional.

Nonsense.  Sorry, but what you said is flat-out untrue.  And, by the way, America once had progressive income tax rates well over 50%.  Look it up.  And somehow we managed to be the world's largest economy, the world's biggest creditor, all while defending half the planet against a superpower.

And the whole "Europe as poor socialists" thing is utterly unsupported by the facts.

Life expectancy (by the way, America is #38):


Human development index:


Infant mortality rate:


Homicide rate:


America, land of the free?

and we are not going to destabilize. We are the richest country in the fuckin world.

Really?  (Actually, we're #14)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

and each and every one of us through hard work and a little bit of luck can improve our station in life.

America doesn't have any monopoly on this.

[MasterMischief]

Generally, relying on stereotypes is unhelpful in political and/or social analysis.

The problem with the Occupy kids is that they lack perspective. They don't understand the difference between poverty and not poverty. They think they are poor if they can't buy a latte in Starbucks and they think they are hungry if their stomachs are growling.

Oopsies.

[Callie Del Noire]

Oopsies.

AH.. I didn't even spot that!

In other points.. I've been reading up. Ron Paul, while still WWWWAAAAYYY behind in delegate count has been winning states..not just delegates. Granted states like Maine aren't huge powerhouses of delegates but it's interesting to watch how the system is being gamed in other states (like Nevada) where there is a 'they said/we said' contest for the delegates going on. Ron Paul was pushed out by what was called technicalities in 2008 and took it this time.. but the Romney campaign is contesting the votes.

[cam13]

I would want to fight form me rights then them wellingly taken

[Callie Del Noire]

I find it depressing that we are seeing more and more candidates, of both parties but more GOP than Dem, outright REFUSING to compromise if elected. Oh yeah, the last ten years of partisan nastiness is only going to grow if these tools get elected.

[MasterMischief]

Fox's incessant parroting of 'failed economic policies' combined with the House's stubborn blocking of every single move the President makes has completely turned me away from the Republican party.  I used to consider myself an Independent and even defended W on multiple occasions.  In my eyes, they have proven themselves to be the party of 'No'.  I believe the Tea Party to be the party of 'Hell No!'.

[Callie Del Noire]

Fox's incessant parroting of 'failed economic policies' combined with the House's stubborn blocking of every single move the President makes has completely turned me away from the Republican party.  I used to consider myself an Independent and even defended W on multiple occasions.  In my eyes, they have proven themselves to be the party of 'No'.  I believe the Tea Party to be the party of 'Hell No!'.

The thing is (to me) is the polcies failed because the GOP did everything they could to obstruct the president. I can't think of a single major policy decision they haven't outright stalled since they got control of the houses of Congress. I think for them to claim the president failed should include the disclaimer 'because we don't understand the words compromise or cooperative effort'.

[Oniya]

The thing is (to me) is the polcies failed because the GOP did everything they could to obstruct the president. I can't think of a single major policy decision they haven't outright stalled since they got control of the houses of Congress. I think for them to claim the president failed should include the disclaimer 'because we don't understand the words compromise or cooperative effort'.

Or even 'because we wanted him to.'

[MasterMischief]

The thing is (to me) is the polcies failed because the GOP did everything they could to obstruct the president.

Was I too subtle?   ;D

Yes, they repeat, ad nauseum, those catch phrases until people start believing them while the House makes sure the game is fixed to the determent of the country.