Republicans are 95% Corrupt, Democrats are 75% Corrupt

"The Republicans are 95 percent corrupt and the Democrats are 75 percent corrupt". "They are accepting money from the same corporations. And of course, that is going to corrupt you."

*******

"The biggest threat to American democracy is corporate power,". "There is vogue in the White House to talk about the threat of big government. But since the beginning of our national history, our most visionary political leaders have warned the American public against the domination of government by corporate power. That warning is missing in the national debate right now. Because so much corporate money is going into politics, the Democratic Party itself has dropped the ball. They just quash discussion about the corrosive impact of excessive corporate power on American democracy."



The above comes from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., our next NY State Attorney General, since Elliot Spitzer is vacating the job to run ( and become ) NY 's next Govenor.

.....more

It's called Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and his Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy (HarperCollins, 2004).

For the past couple of years, he's been giving 40 or so speeches a year, mostly in the red zone, mostly to conservative groups.

He speaks about the corporate attack on the country.

"There is no difference between the reaction I get from Republicans and Democrats, because Americans share the same values," Kennedy told us. "If you talk about these issues in terms of our national values, everybody understands it."

In the book, Kennedy implies that we live in a fascist country and that the Bush White House has learned key lessons from the Nazis.

"While communism is the control of business by government, fascism is the control of government by business," he writes. "My American Heritage Dictionary defines fascism as 'a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with belligerent nationalism.' Sound familiar?"

He quotes Hitler's propaganda chief Herman Goerring: "It is always simply a matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Kennedy then adds: "The White House has clearly grasped the lesson."

Kennedy also quotes Benito Mussolini's insight that "fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

full article

Let's hope that whatever curse on his clan has had it's blood dowery paid, because we need people who despise equally both the Democrat and Republican power elite, that have sold out the US, to be our elected officials.

Sounds about right to me.

We Libertarians are working hard to get our numbers up that high so we can get into office too

It's a nice dream to hope for a leader that is not part of this new Fascism as you are calling it and rightly so I might add. But the chances are slim of us ever having a president like Kennedy again...a president that had his own ideas of how things should be done and wasn't afraid to "rock the boat"......but, look where that got him. Now all we have is one puppet after another being controlled by corporate america and the NWO....sadly, we will never see the likes of Kennedy or Roosevelt or Lincoln again...

just not in politics, because they are putting everything into a "Globalist Box". Which the youth and over stressed adults are complaining about, so what do they do, they take advantage of the made up APA ADD/ADHD and "tired", "sad", "social outcasted" people to shut them up. They discredit us in the media. So intested of day dreaming why not go Thomas Paine, Jefferson Smith, and Elle Woods on their hinnies? They deserve it don't they? I'm thinking about starting a Internet Newsletter for the ATS discussion board, you can check out more on NWO and the theard about the NWO and Feudalism.
If we all vote, and all the viewers to vote third party on "Pencil Fill in" ballots and Absentee ballots than we already are pushing the "2 party system" down. The 2 parties both support Businesses(Big ones and family ones), not the American people. So why not consider it?

And if that fails, we can just get their office numbers and order them a bunch of pizzas and subs they didn't want for a insanely high price.

Originally posted by BSB2005
If we all vote, and all the viewers to vote third party on "Pencil Fill in" ballots and Absentee ballots than we already are pushing the "2 party system" down. The 2 parties both support Businesses(Big ones and family ones), not the American people. So why not consider it?

Since we are bashing the Big two I must step in and offer a solution to the problems of the 2 party system

www.lp.org...

If you dont like them they are half a dozen more parties out there. A vote for ANY of them is a vote against the BS we have now.

Thank you

We need to force a candidate up the ranks that can only win, not also ran. THe Libertarians were the only 3rd party to get on all 50 ballots. Then what do they do!?!? They put up an idiot as the candidate who didn't even finish college & list Boy Scouts on his bio's accomplishments!!!
We need a Ron Paul or a Jim Jeffords to be of the system, but apart from it, you know what I mean? Someone already in the halls of power who has the contacts and can shame and corner his peers into action. We first need a prosecutorial "pace rabbit"....someone like a RFK Jr., who will bring the backroom deals and payola and bought votes to light, so that they're first hobbled....then a contender can set it as an equal foot race.

It's been time since they killed Kennedy. It's been almost uninterrupted progress for "NWO" ever since Lee Harvey and Company took their shots. What happened after Kennedy died? Vietnam, a booming drug trade, South American puppets to supply the drugs, support for terrorists, support for rogue states, wars to disarm the rogue states, terrorist attack on us, war on terrorism, crackdown on American freedoms.

By definition it would take a revolution- America is going to have to throw off this new way of government. The catch is that blood in the streets is not what's going to do the trick. We need a political revolution.

An undebiably American voice is going to have to emerge and start building a peace-time army of voters and active citizens to monitor and impact elections. A new party has to emerge and gain power in local and state governments quickly, then make the move into congress. If you had a strong core organization and charismatic leaders, the road from 3rd party to ruling party is only 20 year long.

The question is... will the leaders and the organization ever come forward to get the ball rolling? I've said it before that there are no more hippies. People aren't going to get off their couch and rally to a cause. A new institution is going to have to work its way up from grass roots and appeal to people as the best option within "business as usual", because the general population has been turned against those who would rock the vote or seek "revolution". Nobody likes a hippie.

Originally posted by Bout Time
We need to force a candidate up the ranks that can only win, not also ran. THe Libertarians were the only 3rd party to get on all 50 ballots. Then what do they do!?!? They put up an idiot as the candidate who didn't even finish college & list Boy Scouts on his bio's accomplishments!!!

I cant really argue this one. Although I voted for him it would have been hard for us to have ran a worse candidate. The problem with us is not so much that others don't take us seriously its that WE usually don't.

We need to really get the message out, start pulling in members of the Big two who are as disgusted as we are and start fielding candidates that have a chance of winning. We are not getting our ideas across and often we are our own worse enemies

Originally posted by Amuk
We need to really get the message out, start pulling in members of the Big two who are as disgusted as we are and start fielding candidates that have a chance of winning. We are not getting our ideas across and often we are our own worse enemies

I can't stress enough that if you want people to know you and respect you, you've got to get into office. The third parties need to start with the fights they can win. They need to go get themselves into the city council of a major city like LA or NY and force change, then bag the Mayor's seat.
You'll have proven men in a population center then- you can win a state legislature or even a congressional seat with that.

You build from the bottom up. I think it's a huge mistake for third parties to keep embarrassing themselves in the presidential race when they ought to be building a base by serving the people better than the big two in those offices which they can win.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
You build from the bottom up. I think it's a huge mistake for third parties to keep embarrassing themselves in the presidential race when they ought to be building a base by serving the people better than the big two in those offices which they can win.

We have more people in local and state offices than any other third party, around 600-700 I believe. How are we embarassing ourselves by not voting for those we see as thieves and crooks.

So your answer is to keep voting for the crooks in office now?

I hope Pataki wins again, I met him at a party for him I was invited to at South Street Seaport, he seems like a nice a guy.

Originally posted by Amuk
We have more people in local and state offices than any other third party, around 600-700 I believe. How are we embarassing ourselves by not voting for those we see as thieves and crooks.

So your answer is to keep voting for the crooks in office now?

Not at all. It is a tough choice the third parties face with the presidential elections. All you can really hope to do is fight the good fight- you wouldn't want to let the crooks run unopposed after all. The problem is that it's not good for your image. People grow very accustomed to watching you lose and it creates voter apathy. Remember how they said Ross Perot would have won if America had voted it's conscience? Well America isn't gong to vote it's conscience because everyone sees the 3rd parties losing and only some of us ever see their victories.

My answer would be to use the presidential races to gain leverage. If you can build strength in a key state you can barter cabinet positions in exchange for putting your weight behind a candidate who can win. That puts you in the spotlight and builds towards a future when you don't have to bow out. People will take your party more seriously when you are running former undersecretaries and secretaries of key cabinet offices.

It's good that you've got some strength in the minor leagues, but where are you in the state governments and the congress? The party needs to put it's best people and its best efforts into gaining control of a state either by dominating that state's congressional representation or by beginning to build a majority in that state's legislative branch.
It's not really worth running for the presidency until you start winning electoral votes. Once a third party finally carries a state in a presidential race, things are going to pick up for them and they'll have the clout to collapse one of the big 2.

Those figures sound good to me. Both parties have a degree of corruption if you look at them both.

The solution? Vote for John McCain! Or Powell, both of these guys are good guys. Especially Powell, he was the only man under Bush who told the truth and was eventually forced to resign when he wouldn't be one of Bush's bitches. I also like McCain cause he is a conservative modertae, not a republican who is moderate, but a conservative that is moderate. He isn't a republican, he would vote on something the democrats support if it was a good bill, cause he is not a republican that would vote no against god if god was a democrat, he is someone who votes yes on good things and no on bad things. If congress was full of McCain's and Powell's we would have a better government.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
If congress was full of McCain's and Powell's we would have a better government.

I thought the same about both men until they showed that they are more than pliable, as void of honor as anyone named Bush, as soon as both stayed their tongues and decided to whore for this illegal junta. Mid 1999 had my vote for McCain after two consecutive Clinton votes, so I've always admired the guy. Powell, I thought he was lost as soon as he declared Repub over being a Dem, then I knew it when he decided not to see a higher office but to be a soilder.

We need the Barbara Boxers of the world to pull more in. We need Ron Paul & Jim Jeffords type Republicans who have some vestige of respectability to confront & take back their party.

Three out of four people make up 75% of statistics !

Originally posted by Bout Time
as void of honor as anyone named Bush, as soon as both stayed their tongues and decided to whore for this illegal junta. Powell, I thought he was lost as soon as he declared Repub over being a Dem, then I knew it when he decided not to see a higher office but to be a soilder.

I'm not sure that's the only conclusion possible. The parties are fairly similar for one thing, and the republican party lends itself to support for soldiers best. Then what did Powell do? He was the voice of opposition in the white house. He was a little quiet and didn't blast Bush because that would have ensured that no future president was ever crazy enough to have a dissenter in his cabinet. Powell did fight the good fight though, and considering his politics in particular I'm not sure his choice of party is what says the most about him.
The thing that really makes Powell a great man though is this: he can sit down and work with the badguys when it's necessary. You may not know this, but when the Commandant of the Marine Corps got his first look at "Stormin' Norman's" plan for Desert Storm, he said "my god, it's another Tarawa." Colin Powell worked with Dick Cheney and helped rope Swartz-warts into the "hail mary" manuever instead of going straight up the middle. The guy sat down with one of the worst men in US politics and got something done that saved lives. I can respect that.

We need the Barbara Boxers of the world to pull more in.

Why, because she blasts Bush at the top of her lungs (and is ignored by everyone who doesn't agre with her)? There are only two things that seperate Boxer and Powell.
1. Boxer's position allows, even forces her to scream at the top of her lungs, while Powell's position requires that he be tactful and reasonable in his dissent.
2. Colin Powell is a reasonable and moderate person who commands respect for his non-political achievements. Unlike vitriolic partisan politicians he can speak softly while brandishing a big stick (facts) and be heard by the people who matter (the people who currently support Bush).

Not everyone who is against bad things is good my friend. Some of the loudest voices on the left are the same breed of weasel that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are. Half of the political radicals want to conquer the world, the other half want to hand over our sovreignity. All of those radicals are supporting agendas that do not benefit the people but which do benefit whatever secret political and business ties they have to certain influential conspirators in what presidents themselves have called "new world order".

I don't mean to be rude, but something in what I read sounded an awful lot like "even moderate conservatives like Powell are evil, but far left whackos like Boxer are the good guys". That's absolutely backwards. What few TRUE moderates we have are the good guys, and the extremists, almost to the man, do not represent the best interest of any majority of Americans.

Be sure to add the media into that profile of corporate corruption.

The second shoe just fell on another paid Bush-Cheney "journalist" following the first Education Dept. scandal with Armstrong.

This one was working for HUD defending Bush's marriage initiative.

More to follow as Armstrong has implicated several others doing the same thing, meaning he wasn' tthe only one.

This is just overwhelming to me.

And the press is liberal? How about bought and paid for by the Republican Party. If not directly (as in these cases) then Pharmco advertising. Same thing.

See Bush's "admission" of guilt this morning? He said "Armstrong knew he was wrong and apologized."

Yeah, his bad for taking your money. The black guy did it.

I had posted a thread yesterday about Kennedy. However, nobody read it

Kennedy wrote a book last year called "Crimes Against Nature" that he hoped would change the direction of the country. It didn't, in it Kennedy implies that we live in a fascist country and that the Bush White House has learned key lessons from the Nazis.
Kennedy: Fascist America

Kennedy: Fascist America
by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

01/23/05 -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wants to run for Attorney General of New York State.

He might announce his candidacy within the next two weeks.

He's the son of Robert F. Kennedy, the former Attorney General under his brother, John F. Kennedy.

In 2001, President Bush named the Justice Department building after RFK.

The young Kennedy attended the ceremony.

We asked him what he thought of President Bush naming the building after his dad.

He said he wouldn't comment on the record.

But he did call President Bush "the most corrupt and immoral President that we have had in American history."
Not that he was enamored with Senator John Kerry.
Link

I'm reminded of a quote by the brilliant Arthur C. Clarke, "Anyone who WANTS to be President, should be automatically be disqualified."