BS: Which side are you on?

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Midchuck
Date: 02 Sep 09 - 09:28 AM

There are some Democrats left who are not corrupt or insane.

Bernie Sanders
Barney Frank
Dennis Kucinich
John Kerry (although confused)
Howard Dean

Cool! Two Vermonters out of five. And we only have like 2/10 of 1% of the US population.

Only trouble is, Boiney doesn't purport to be a Democrat. He's on the ballot as Independent. In his younger days, he openly identified himself as Socialist, but he stopped doing that when he got into national politics. Like you said, he's not insane.

He does caucus with the Democrats, though, as I understand it.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 06:22 PM

How about Clinton handing off to Bush? ("The last 60 years..."?)

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 04:09 PM

What you are describing is indeed a clever and devastating political ploy, Donuel.

But what if they're all in it together and the real target of the ploy is the general public...with damage to the other party being merely a secondary consideration? (not that I'm saying it isn't a consideration...I'm sure it is).

It's a game. They play to win. The public loses.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Sep 09 - 01:55 PM

For the last 60 years it has been an accepted stategy to nearly empty the treasury or borrow hugh amounts of money just when you know the other party is about to inherit the White House.
Thiat way your opponent will not be able to afford the promises he made.

THIS time around however the amount of theft prior to the hand over is unprecidented, historic and mind boggling.

By the time we get back to even 18 years from now, BRIC will be way ahead.

BRIC = The collective economies of Brazil, Russia, India, China.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 06:04 PM

I didn't say that Ron Paul was perfect. ;-) I said he has some good ideas.

Furthermore, I've heard him answer those accusations about racist stuff in his newsletters...stuff which was written by various supporters of his with their own personal axes to grind, not by him...and which he should not be personally blamed for in that regard, as it wasn't his intentions that were being expressed, and he didn't know what his supporters were putting out in that regard until after it was already out there.

Your one-sided assertions about Republicans are just as fanatical, prejudiced, and downright loopy as the one-sided assertions that the worst of them make about Democrats and "liberals". All you are doing is revealing your own very strong partisan prejudices when you make those kind of assertions.

I agree, however, that the Republican Party is (in general) on a very wrong track. If they were running in Canada, they'd get less than 20% of our population on their side (the Democrats would get the other 80%). That's how far out of sync the Republicans are with the world in general outside the USA. The only place where I think they are more popular than the Democrats is in Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 04:54 PM

LH, Ron Paul has published racist articles in previous editions of his newsletters.

LH, Republicans are not "individuals" but brain-washed political deluded Party supporters.
Their individuality is separate and has little to do with their belief system.

You can divide people into behavioral patterns regardless of their political or religious
beliefs. There are many good people who are deluded. There are people who will behave in "good" ways even though they adopt the most heinous of religious or political beliefs.

Today, we are so afraid to call people out on the basis of their religion and politics even
if it leads to the taking over of their racism, the demeaning of women, the blind following of offensive ideas,the complete acceptance of lies and manipulation,and the push-button adherence that many have to stupid ideas.

Republicans are not individuals. They are political party adherents. As individuals, they might be something else entirely. I can accept them as individuals but not as Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 03:52 PM

Ron Paul. (not that I agree with everything he says, but he has taken some good stands on a number of crucial issues)

Also, I read Mike Huckabee's book, and he has some good ideas too...although I disagree with some of his ideas as well.

Now understand, Stringsinger, I detest the Republican Party just as much as you do, but that does not cause me to detest all Republicans when it comes down to individuals. Life is just not that simple that you can divide people into "the good" and "the bad" on the basis of their party affiliation.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 03:27 PM

There are some Democrats left who are not corrupt or insane.

Bernie Sanders
Barney Frank
Dennis Kucinich
John Kerry (although confused)
Howard Dean
There are some others as well.


Name me one Republican being endorsed by that party who isn't insane or corrupt.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 11:48 AM

I would agree that the terms "conservative" and "liberal" have both been bastardized in the American vernacular to the point that they have no meaning anymore.

As for which party is totally corrupt and which isn't, I think that both the Democratic and the Republican parties are totally corrupt (as political organizations), but that the Democrats have a slightly more likeable and less overtly insane way of applying their particular form of total corruption when making policy... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 09 - 10:27 AM

LH There are conservative Democrats. But they are not Republicans. Many of them might possibly have the values of some Republicans. But the Democratic Party is not totally corrupt yet but the Republican Party is.

George Lakoff describes the conservative Democrats as "biconceptuals". These are people who have authoritarian Republican views when it comes to personal matters and liberal views on a political level. They are conflicted.

Conservative doesn't translate to Republican any more because most Republicans are radicals of the Right. Palin, Beck, LImbaugh, even McCain, Malkin, and many Senators and Congressman are Right-wing Radicals.

Half of the people of the US are not Right-wing Radicals. Conservative is word that has lost its meaning. People who are in favor of a government-sponsored health care bill are conservatives, in that case, because the radical-right fringe would do damage to it. A true conservative would not like to see insurance companies gouge the consumer by "taxing" them with outlandish premiums and denying coverage.

I think the term conservative has no meaning any more.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:34 PM

Ah...well, are we dealing in exact technical definitions of words, Ebbie, or in the commonly understood meanings of words?

When Winston Churchill made the statement originally quoted here, which was: "Democracy is a terrible form of government, but it's better than all the rest."

...when he made that statement, he was clearly referring to the repesentative forms of government that we presently have in countries such as the UK, Canada, France, the USA, etc....he was NOT referring to a system which operates by direct majority vote of the people on every single decision and issue.

When someone refers to the USA now and calls it a "democracy", it is completely obvious that they mean it is a representative democracy in the form of a republic.

A representative democracy in the form of a republic can be subverted without technically breaking the rules when its major political parties come under the controlling influence of large money interests to the detriment of the general public and are only pretending to be representative of the public. And that is what has happened.

The writers of your constitution did not anticipate such a situation arising (with the possible exception of James Madison, who warned against the rise of political parties). They did not realize what the advent of the multinational corporation could mean in the long run to the representative democracy they were trying to establish in the late 1700s.

The Constitution is not set up to properly protect itself against what is presently occurring. Nor are the constitutions of other nations. We face a new form of oppression which our laws are not really adequate to address.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 05:08 PM

Did the US ever identify itself as a "democracy"? Didn't we always add the label 'representative"?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351222/posts

"Democracy: Operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling (what the Founding Fathers described as "mobocracy"). Example: in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

"Republic: Where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation … a republic is rule by law. Our republic is a form of government where power is separated, [our Founding Fathers knew that people are basically weak, sinful and corruptible, (Jeremiah 17:9)], pitting men against each other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes.

"(Webster's dictionary definition: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and according to law.)"

And yes. I do realize that this is a freerepublic site, but presumably they don't ALWAYS get it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 01:31 PM

Yes, I understand that you are referring to the law, Ebbie. No problem. I was looking at it in a larger philosophical sense, not in a legal sense. Laws are imperfect solutions to complex problems, and they can be amended.

The thing that troubles me about the attacks on Obama's supposed birth origins is this: the people launching those attacks are siezing upon an irrelevant legal technicality for their own selfish reasons. They're not acting out of any genuine altruism or in any genuine service to their nation, they are acting out of cynical and partisan self-interest...and ill will.

kendall - Coporatocracy is a really terrible form of government, and it's not better than all the rest. What you have in the USA is not a true democracy anymore (though it once was), it's a corporatocracy. It's the illusion of a democracy maintained by a dominant Oligarchy of monied interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:27 PM

As Winston C. said, "Democracy is a terrible form of government, but it's better than all the rest."

Look, they are all tarred with the same brush, and all we can do is try to minimize the damage they do. I voted for O'Bama, but I'm very concerned about the debt he is piling up. I know, he says the economy was much worse than he realized when he took office, but even if that's true it is still worrisome.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 12:18 PM

Little Hawk, we are positing different scenarios. I agree with you that a person who identifies him/herself as an American, a Canadian, an Iranian, whoever, is an American, a Canadian, an Iranian, whoever, for most intents and purposes. However, that is not what the law says, whether you are speaking of America, Canada, Iran or whatever.

And that is what I refer to.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 11:13 AM

I'm not necessarily accepting any notion that Obama was born outside the USA, Ebbie...I'm just saying that for me, it doesn't matter if he WAS. The only thing that would matter to me would be how he feels about himself NOW. If he feels like an American inside, then he IS an American as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't give a toot if he spent the first year or two of his life in some other country, because it wouldn't matter.

I realize it would matter in a strictly legal sense, but I don't give a damn, because the law, in that respect, would be an ass. The only thing that actually matters is the person's own innate sense of who they are. A child that grows up culturally AS an American IS an American. Period. And if that child was born somewhere else and lived there for a short while, so what?

I know a great many Canadians who were born somewhere else but came here when quite young. They are all Canadians. They are not Germans, Scots, Irish, Indians, Russians or anything else. They are Canadians. You know why? Because their cultural sense of themselves derives first and foremost from this society, that's why.

I've seen nothing about Obama that does not suggest to me that his primary cultural roots were formed in the USA...regardless of where he was born. He is therefore an American.

People who cling to technicalities of the written law to disavow much more simple and clear realities are in my opinion merely opportunistic scoundrels looking to gain some momentary advantage, not people seeking justice or fairness.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 07:40 AM

I'm with you Brucie baby! but I'm afraid I dont share your view that any here have "awakened" to the truth.....if anything, they appeared to be becoming more entrenched, as the truth becomes more obvious.

They are indeed a lost cause, berating the most insightful poster on these threads and twisting his words to suit their beliefs.

It seems the more "educated" people become the less open they are to new ideas. These folks will unhold the one party system till they die........As I've said many times lately, they are the gravest danger to our future "useful idiots", only of use to those they say they stand against.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Aug 09 - 03:44 AM

Little Hawk, don't be so accepting, please.

"Obama ...an illegal alien." Not true.

Of course, your statement:
"Where a person was technically born is not the issue." is also not true. In this country, it is enough of an issue that if it were true, Barack Obama could not be our president.

"Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would win easily over anyone nominated by the Dems or Reps." Absolutely not true.

"Technically, Alexander Haig was in charge of the government"? Not true.

"Hillary has already said she will challenge Obama" Not true

Someone is making lying statements. Sadly, I think he knows it.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 11:54 PM

Hell, Peace, I haven't had any respect for the Democratic Party (or the Republican Party either) since John F. Kennedy died and Lyndon Johnson took over the White House.

That doesn't mean I don't respect a certain few individuals within the Democractic Party, like Dennis Kucinich, it just means I don't respect the Party itself, that's all. It's a power structure, and it does not serve the common people, it serves the great vested monetary interests. So do the Republicans.

Come to think of it, I am hard pressed to identify any large political party that I respect in the present era. If they are large, they already sold out long ago. I sure don't respect any of the large political parties in Canada.

(But I do respect some individuals in those parties...and the ordinary people who sincerely support those parties, usually with the best of intentions.)

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 08:17 PM

I no longer have any respect for the Democratic Party. They continued the war, they waffle on Medicare, they are not doing what they promised. I think it was a very sad day that Belosi was appointed as Speaker. Very sad. However, it ain't my country. Hope y'all get it figured out while you still have something left to figure out. Looks to me like you have let the rich take over and I'd guess that some here who thought they were 'middle class' have awakened to the fact that it just means you are poor, but a bit less poor than the guy down the street.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Joe_F
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 05:54 PM

Successful systems accumulate parasites. Of the institutionalized evils in the rich countries, IMO, two of the vilest are the promotion industry and the drug laws -- the one parasitic on the market; the other, on the government. Left, shmeft! Right, shmight!

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 09:58 AM

I think you are quite right, Middle Side.

As to whether people are born in a country or not...I don't think that actually matters. What matters is whether they grew up from a pretty young age in a country, because that determines whether they feel like they belong to it. For example, I know several Canadians who came over to this country with their parents when they were quite young...say, five years old, 10 years old, etc. Still children. And then they grew up in this country. They ARE Canadians in every way that matters and they think like Canadians. There is no reason why any one of them could not properly serve as our Prime Minister (all other things being equal).

Where a person was technically born is not the issue. Who they think they ARE within themselves is the issue. Anyone who thinks he's a Canadian and really believes that he is...IS a Canadian. And it works the same way for Americans. Therefore I don't believe it really matters where Obama was born...it just matters what he thinks within himself about himself.

kendall - I'm also conservative about a variety of things and liberal about a variety of things, and I think that's true of almost everyone. The great "conservative/liberal" divide in America is a primitive game of crude stereotyping meant to divide the public into 2 warring camps...and so far it has worked magnificently. This benefits the powers that be, and helps to keep them in power as they play off one half of the public against the other half and do the "good cop/bad cop" routine at election time.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: kendall
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 07:29 AM

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: GUEST,Middle Side
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 06:51 AM

It's all a show anyway. The shadow government (actually called that in government documents) revealed itself when Reagan was shot and Alexander Haig said he was in charge in the white house. He was, technically. The sideshows of elections are only meant to appease us. The CIA runs the country.

Hitlary has already said she'll challenge Obama (like the McCarthy, RFK movements). A lot of drama for nothing. The elected officials just carry out the CIA tasks they're given.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Aug 09 - 12:45 AM

In general, I agree with the above, Middleside. I agree 100% about the Democrats and Republicans being 2 arms of the same gorilla.

If they (the Republicans) nominate Jeb Bush in 2012, that will be truly frikkin' hilarious!

I don't particularly care, though, if Obama is (or is not) "an illegal alien". I don't give a damn about that. Yes, I know you Americans care about it....but I don't. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: GUEST,Middle side
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:49 PM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=all+states+conservative&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Conservatives outnumber liberals in all 50 states. And the Republicans are talking about running Jeb Bush for President. (This is how Hitlary would be put into power...by running a more offensive alternative).

Time to wake up, folks.

Because of G.W. Bush's wars, Democrats were elected to congress in 2006. The wars continued. The benefit of a doubt was given in 2008 and a Democrat was elected president. Obama continues Bush's policies.

Now the pendulum is swinging the other way. The Democrats have failed miserably, and they will be replaced beginning in 2010.

It's time to stop the nonsense. The Dems/Reps are the left and right hands of the same gorilla. Time to quit buying into the deception. It's time to start a true third party. Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul would win easily over anyone nominated by the Dems or Reps.

Before that, though, the Bush people need Nuremberg prosecutions and Obama needs to be jettisoned as an illegal alien.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 03:08 PM

Donuel, thank you for telling me you're on the left.

We'd a never thunk it!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 02:53 PM

I'll reply to your comments at some length, Stringsinger, because you've covered a lot of interesting ground in them.

*******"L.H., I wish what you are saying were true but more and more Republicans are buying into the wacky minority and are enabling
and defending this behavior."

That may be so...they're just not all the same as the wacky minority, and that's the point I was making.

*******"First of all, there is no measurement that says that Republicanism is
half the people in the U.S. That's inaccurate."

No...but that's not what I meant. I meant that self-proclaimed "conservatives" are approximately half of the peole in the USA...possibly more than half, in fact. Among the people who vote it is not inacurrate to say that it's split fairly close to half and half between those who vote Republican and those who vote Democratic. It's never exactly half, but it's more or less half and half for all practical purposes.


***** "The American people
voted for the Democratic Party. Obama is the president of choice
and he is a Democrat."

Yes. A lot of them did. Enough for Obama to win. They did that because 8 years of terribly bad policy by Bush and Cheney had wrecked the Republicans' chances at winning the presidency in 2008. They "kicked the rascals out".

****** "The enormity of the problem of this country is that it is being controlled by lobbyists who are fueling the crazy behavior of the Republicans. Being in the UK, you may not be able to see that."

I agree with that 100%! But I'm in Canada. What worries me, though, Stringsinger, is that those same corporate lobbyists control the Democratic Party too. And they always have, at least since John Kennedy.

*********"Yes, there is a Civil War going on in the US today. I wish it were
just well-meaning and misguided people who are fueling the fire.
Unfortunately, there are those who think they stand to profit by
these insane ideologies that are infecting our democracy."

True.

******"What leads to no-good is a denial that everyone should "just get along" and these problems will just go away."

Agreed.

*******"No where good has been going on in the country for a very long time. Many of these so-called well-meaning people are crazy ideologues who
have bought into the propaganda by corporations, drug companies and crooked insurance companies. (Yes, crooked!)"

Agreed!

"Republicans have a responsibility to reclaim the sanity in their Party and
unfortunately they have not had the temerity to speak out. They are content to let the crazy fringe speak for them. Name me one Republican
who has spoken out against these town hall atrocities? Maybe there is one but that doesn't reflect the nature of the contemporary Republican
Party."

Agreed. They're even worse than the Democrats. But consider that the $ySStem that orchestrates the whole sorry mess is playing the old "good cop - bad cop" routine on the American public with the Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans got to be the "bad cop" in 2008, that's all, because it was time to change hats. The $ySStem can keep ordinary Americans eternally mesmerized by bouncing them back and forth between the "good cop" and the "bad cop" at election time....and the two cops periodically change hats! When one of them has totally blown his credibility (by doing what the $ySStem wants for 4 to 8 years), then the other one rushes supposedly to everyone's rescue as the "good cop", gets elected, and the whole charade starts up again and runs for another 4 to 8 years, and the $ySStem (represented by the corporate lobbyists) gets what it wants regardless.


****** "There is a historical precedent for this "go along" attitude. It involves
dicators and guns."

Yes indeed it does. It also involves hired guns...like Blackwater and a number of similar outfits. Like the hired guns who went in to do security after Katrina. Yes, a full scale dictatorship is waiting quietly in the wings, Stringsinger, and all they need to go into action is a convenient "national emergency" of some kind.

You will find them far more dangerous than a few rightwing morons who go to town hall meetings with pistols strapped on their legs. Why? Because they're far better organized and far more numerous, that's why. And they're well funded. And they are under central command. And they will work for either a Republican or a Democratic administration without even blinking an eye. They take orders from whoever is in power at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 02:16 PM

We need to fill the divide with more Midchucks.

Hail Little Hawk Minister of anti Imperialistic Ministries.
Unfortunatly fixing the damage that British border creations caused will take another 100 years.

Akenaton I share your assesment that the Clintons were the cucoos in the nest and did about half the damage that the GWB administration regarding did by deregulating the criminal activities of Wall St. financiers. Bill did manage to create a surplus on paper compared to Bush's historic expansion of debt by 600%
I don't get the heil y'all comment however.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 01:57 PM

L.H., I wish what you are saying were true but more and more Republicans are buying into the wacky minority and are enabling
and defending this behavior.

First of all, there is no measurement that says that Republicanism is
half the people in the U.S. That's inaccurate. The American people
voted for the Democratic Party. Obama is the president of choice
and he is a Democrat. The enormity of the problem of this country is that it is being controlled by lobbyists who are fueling the crazy behavior of the Republicans. Being in the UK, you may not be able to see that.

Yes, there is a Civil War going on in the US today. I wish it were
just well-meaning and misguided people who are fueling the fire.
Unfortunately, there are those who think they stand to profit by
these insane ideologies that are infecting our democracy.

What leads to no-good is a denial that everyone should "just get along" and these problems will just go away.

No where good has been going on in the country for a very long time.

Many of these so-called well-meaning people are crazy ideologues who
have bought into the propaganda by corporations, drug companies and crooked insurance companies. (Yes, crooked!)

Republicans have a responsibility to reclaim the sanity in their Party and
unfortunately they have not had the temerity to speak out. They are content to let the crazy fringe speak for them. Name me one Republican
who has spoken out against these town hall atrocities? Maybe there is one but that doesn't reflect the nature of the contemporary Republican
Party.

There is a historical precedence for this "go along" attitude. It involves
dicators and guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:34 AM

EXCELLENT post, Midchuck!

Akenaton - Those are interesting and radical theories you have proposed there about the Clintons and Obama. I don't know if you're right or not, but cut that passage out and stick it on your fridge...then check back with me in 4 years and we'll see if you were right.

What is required to enact a successful fascist takeover is a messianic and overwhelming sense in its ardent supporters that they have the moral high ground...and that they are opposing a great and terrible evil, which demands that emergency measures be taken. There is then the willingness on the part of the generally supportive public to endure those unpleasant "emergency" measures until the crisis passes....but it never does! The crisis remains, and it gets worse. And so do the emergency measures. And that's when the body count starts to rise dramatically as the "great and terrible evil" which was invented by the fascist movement is ruthlessly attacked by the ruling $ySStem.

You can do it with either corporatism, capitalism, communism or socialism. Doesn't really matter. The same basic procedures apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 10:26 AM

I am an old fashioned democrat.
Some of my best friends are old fashioned republicans.
We all shake our heads sadly at the hijacking of the Republican Party.

Russ (Permanent GUEST and political pragmatist)

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Midchuck
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 09:08 AM

I am on the conservative side (with reservations) on the gun control issue.

I am on the liberal side (with reservations) on the abortion/"right to life" issue.

I am on the conservative side (with reservations) on government regulation of small business.

I am on the liberal side (with very few reservations) on government regulation of large business.

I'm somewhere in the middle on government regulation of middle-sized business.

I tend to the liberal side on health care management and funding - with the reservation that if we set it up so doctors and other health care providers don't make much money, we're going to get second-rate health care providers as the smartest people go into careers where they can make good money...

And so it goes from one issue to the next.

America has only two political parties that count, and neither of them works for me.

So YOU decide which side I'm on, if you consider it that simple!

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 03:25 AM

I agree with Guest....."liberalism"/fascism are indistinguishable. The only problem with guest's scenario is how the hell Hillary can manage to grow a little black moustache before she tips Obama out of the nest.
Guest is also correct in saying that Obama will be a one termer, I said long ago that the Clintons were the cuckoos in the nest and we can now actually see it at work.... as Obama becomes mired in unpopular domestic issues, Hillary is free to strut the world stage making populist pronouncments and becoming the "face of America"

"Sieg Heil at ya" as they say in the good ole U S of A.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 12:38 AM

I'm with you, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: GUEST,Middle side
Date: 28 Aug 09 - 12:28 AM

There's a problem with that diagram. The "conservative" principle on the right says to make no law against bankers. Bush's "bailout" just before he left office, and Obama's "stimulus" just after he got in are identical. Both transferred wealth to overseas banks. In the last 11 months, over 24 trillion dollars has been looted from the U.S. treasuty by the Bush/Obama one-two.

Listen to political analyst Webster Tarpley. He explains how Obama's a fascist in the truest sense of the word. Obama's working on "National Socialism." Obama supporters are fascists and don't even know it. Sad thing is, anti-Obamanots are being told Obama's bad because he's a socialist. Obama's a one-termer, so in 3 more years we're going to see a publicly-approved fascist placed in the white house...and people still won't know that Obama's "socialism" was really fascism all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:47 PM

I did, MarkS. Several times. Small business people, some of whom are barely getting by, do offer jobs to many people in their local area.

Super-rich oufits like Walmart, on the other hand, reduce the actual number of jobs in the towns where they locate, destroy many small businesses there, and provide work for millions of people in China.

That's the Oligarchy in action. It pretends to be traditional "capitalism", but it isn't. It's "corporatism". Corporatism destroys the foundations of traditional capitalism by wiping out the small businessman and replacing him with gigantic centralized but privately owned marketing monopolies that provide very little domestic employment for North Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: GUEST,MarkS (on the road)
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 08:41 PM

And as far as only the rich creating jobs, well,,, I never got an offer of employment from a poor guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Amergin
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 06:17 PM

And Republicans are not the only ones who are armed....

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 06:07 PM

You're generalizing way too much in your descriptions of "Republicans", Stringsinger. I think if you were to do an actual head count among Republicans and find out how many do wear guns at town hall meetings, you would find out that it's a very small and wacky minority of Republicans who do that.

Now...keep in mind that you have about half the people in the country making the same sort of wildly innacurate negative judgements and generalizations about "Democrats" or "liberals"...and you see the enormity of the problem facing your society.

It is a housed divided against itself. (You'll recall what Lincoln said about that...) It is a culture war for sure. And it's one that is pandered to and actively encouraged by the political parties, the ruling $ySStem, the mass media, and well-meaning but misguided people in the general public.

It's a key part of the chains that bind you, this tendency to negatively stereotype everyone that's on "the other side". It leads nowhere good.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 04:46 PM

Pat Buchanan of all people said that there is a culture war today in the US.
I think he is right. Obama fails to recognize this thinking that ideologies are the same as people who believe them. Obama is going along without advocating getting along.
If he were concerned with getting along, he would call these Republican nuts out
and insist they become cooperative.

Republicans are not to be trusted. Their ideology runs counter to the needs of our country. Their ideology must be defeated through education and objection.

Some of them may be nice people but that's not the issue. They believe in something
that is destructive for Americans.

The proof is the wearing of guns at town hall meetings. Republicans only know
intimidation to get their way. They have no plan or alternative except to propagate
their fears of becoming anachronistic. The gun toters should be arrested.

If Republicans think they can shoot their way out of our problems, that even brings
their ideologies into sharper focus.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 04:44 PM

My father was a minor
But I am an adult...

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 04:31 PM

I like it. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 01:44 PM

Ha! Pretty good, Donuel. ;-)

Now, just imagine the cartoon that a conservative would come up with along that line. It would be designed along the same general principles of stark contrasts, but slanted from a completely different perspective.

On one side, for instance, there'd be a dippy looking unwashed dreamer in tattered jeans and bare feet, hugging a tree, puffing on a joint, and thinking about cashing his welfare check so he can go and buy more dope. On the other side there'd be a hard-working responsible middle class guy, clean and neatly dressed, conscientiously doing his 9-5 job to support his community and his family...

And so on...

;-D

You see, it's easy. You just form the worst negative stereotypes you can think of of the people you inwardly fear and despise and put them on one side of the cartoon....and then on the other side you form the most positive stereotypes that make you feel good, secure, and proud.

Dead simple.

Conservatives and liberals are both naturals at the art of demeaning one another.

Thus the Great Divide is perpetuated.

****

In your cartoon, however, I'm definitely on the same side as you are...but don't expect it to sway anyone in the conservative camp. It will just piss them off, because they won't identify at all with what it's saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 01:35 PM

Succinct!

Subject: RE: BS: Which side are you on?
From: olddude
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 01:23 PM

Pretty much sums it all up Donuel. A picture is worth a thousand words and yours is right on the mark I think ... give me the left everytime.

Subject: BS: Which side are you on?
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Aug 09 - 01:19 PM

A Fundamental divide exists. Some say a fundamentalist divide and others would call it a class divide.

Here is how I picture the divide http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/fundamental_divide.jpg


I am on the left.