Republicans continue on their quest to destroy everything the U.S. stands for.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yes I am more than aware of the lesser of two evils mentality. But guess what? It doesn't work and as "lefty" I chose to scrutinize those that are closer to my ideology just because I feel they should know better. When you break it down really all votes are wasted being that both parties are in bed with certain "interests". Those that believe that the reason for all the problems in our country are due to one political party and one party only ignore the reality of the larger picture.

I'm all for calling it as we see it, but when focusing on one party only, people aren't seeing the obvious which is that both parties aren't that different (when you really break it down). It's what I like to call selective blindness. The extreme partisanship (team mentality) on either side of the center is a waste of energy, a massive distraction and a dividing measure used for the sake of conditioning one's mind into believing that it would all change if only my party was in power - which is a delusion.

BTW anarchists aren't extreme right FYI.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Yes I am more than aware of the lesser of two evils mentality. But guess what? It doesn't work and as "lefty" I chose to scrutinize those that are closer to my ideology just because I feel they should know better. When you break it down really all votes are wasted being that both parties are in bed with certain "interests". Those that believe that the reason for all the problems in our country are due to one political party and one party only ignore the reality of the larger picture.

I'm all for calling it as we see it, but when focusing on one party only, people aren't seeing the obvious which is that both parties aren't that different (when you really break it down). It's what I like to call selective blindness. The extreme partisanship (team mentality) on either side of the center is a waste of energy, a massive distraction and a dividing measure used for the sake of conditioning one's mind into believing that it would all change if only my party was in power - which is a delusion.

BTW anarchists aren't extreme right FYI.

edit on 22-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

Politicians who are center-left or center-right tend to play it both ways according to what suits them best at any given time. Corporatism is a rightist philosophy(has nothing to do with fascism or nazism) and MANY people who are employed by corporations or have a huge sum of money invested in the stock market tend to vote republican.

Those who are blue collar, skilled or unskilled, tend to vote for labor power. Democrats are not ideal in this regard because they are too center. A better choice would be socialism or communism, BUT mainstream media who is CORPORATELY OWNED gives little air time to the smaller parties and the smaller parties do not receive enough funding to advertise appropriately, thus people have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Individualism=elitism and sometimes racism. Collectivism=equal opportunity and sometimes pseudo-eqaulity.

Anarchism HAS TO BE far right since the farther right you go, the smaller the government and the more individualism is emphasised. Communism HAS TO BE extreme left since the farther left you go, the bigger the government gets and the more collectivism is emphasised.

Anarchism means no government, and a smaller government is closest to no government than a big government is to no government. Anarchism being associated with the left is a misnomer being perpetuated by the ill-informed, who are victims of europe's stay behind army and the cia. You have no idea just how far right the cia and rand are. They have helped install right wing dictatorships through the whole planet!

Communism= the state owns everything

Anarchism=the state owns nothing.

SIMPLE

There is no reason to be confused. Only the PTB want everyone to be confused and keep voting center-left or center-right.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Communism= the state owns everything

Anarchism=the state owns nothing.

SIMPLE

There is no reason to be confused. Only the PTB want everyone to be confused and keep voting center-left or center-right.

State = LAWS to protect private property and enforce contracts

NO STATE = No LAWS to protect private property or enforce contracts

That is the duality

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Fair enough, and I don't necessarily disagree with your points, except the end part when you say people have to choose the lesser of two evils (because of lesser media exposure which is true) which I don't believe is true. The problem I see with that is any real change isn't going to happen while at the same time it fortifies the existence of the duopoly.

When it comes to anarchy I guess it depends on which faction you speak of. Some anarchist factions are socialistic in their agenda and systems. I am all for socialism, but not with the type of system we have running today. IMO in order for socialism to work priorities need to change, relations between one another need to change, and our entire world view and philosophy would need to change. Not by force but voluntarily.

Anarchists and Libertarians have a lot of things in common, but don't tell a libertarian that. My thing is both parties are crazy and both parties have valid concerns. Big government is a waste, promotes cronyism and is a major tax burden on everyone (not to mention the "entity" acts like psychotic murderers). Some government is needed to provide basic services and some protections. That I agree with the right. But on the other hand I do not believe in the survival of the fittest mentality that most right wingers I know have. I also don't believe Big Government is the only (or main) reason for the crumbling of society. You cannot say government is bad without looking at the function and purpose of corporations, banking and Wall street. They are all tied together.

Big Government = bad
Small Government without checks on private monopolistic power = bad.

But I can be considered radical because I believe our whole system is unnatural and that includes the concept of money, the concept of land ownership, the concept of material wealth, the concept of taking from those weaker than us (might = right), the concept anything other than common law (not to be confused with legality), the concept of civilization etc..

Originally posted by jacklondonmiller

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Communism= the state owns everything

Anarchism=the state owns nothing.

SIMPLE

There is no reason to be confused. Only the PTB want everyone to be confused and keep voting center-left or center-right.

State = LAWS to protect private property and enforce contracts

NO STATE = No LAWS to protect private property or enforce contracts

That is the duality

edit on 22-12-2011 by jacklondonmiller because: (no reason given)

What about public property? I would argue that depending on the mixture of pubic to private property the laws are adjusted accordingly. Of course if everything is public property then we have a maximum of laws and if we have anarchism we have zero laws..........

Your post was a bit deceptive!

I think you are over generalizing Anarchism a bit. It's tempting to simplify things a bit when trying to make a point but I think you might find some surprises if you take the time to research all the different factions in Anarchism. I have recently done so myself, but it is a lot to digest and to reflect on, so bare with me. Wiki has some good info.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think you are over generalizing Anarchism a bit. It's tempting to simplify things a bit when trying to make a point but I think you might find some surprises if you take the time to research all the different factions in Anarchism. I have recently done so myself, but it is a lot to digest and to reflect on, so bare with me. Wiki has some good info.

I am not over-generalising anarchism because anarchism is clear-cut NO GOVERNMENT, no laws, everything is private property to be defended by self, no state, no military, no police, nothing, nada,

With communism the state(being the people as a whole with their government) owns and controls everything. There NEEDS TO BE a lot of laws to keep order and prevent cheating. It is a zombie system of pseudo-equality!

What is hard to understand

The Democrats a moving us in a new direction and at this point we should not stop them...because sometimes it takes more than four years for some people to wake up.

Our New Direction USSA

DAMF

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think you are over generalizing Anarchism a bit. It's tempting to simplify things a bit when trying to make a point but I think you might find some surprises if you take the time to research all the different factions in Anarchism. I have recently done so myself, but it is a lot to digest and to reflect on, so bare with me. Wiki has some good info.

I am not over-generalising anarchism because anarchism is clear-cut NO GOVERNMENT, no laws, everything is private property to be defended by self, no state, no military, no police, nothing, nada,

With communism the state(being the people as a whole with their government) owns and controls everything. There NEEDS TO BE a lot of laws to keep order and prevent cheating. It is a zombie system of pseudo-equality!

What is hard to understand

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,[1][2] or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[3][9][10] voluntary associations.[11][12]

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[13] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[14][15] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[16][17] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.[18][19][20] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists[21][22] while some anarcho-communists are also individualists

secure.wikimedia.org...

It's not that simple bro. That's from the opening paragraph of the wiki link. Not advocating anarchism, but would prefer to remain honest about the subject which I am learning about little by little (so I'm no expert of course).

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


I was aware of the official definition but I still disagree with it. Either you are an individualist, collectivist or something in the middle. You cannot be both extremes at the same time. You should read about operation gladio, and how governments use these right wing radical elements to infiltrate the left during protest rallies to kill and cause property damage, so that the left becomes the scapegoat!



I am not here to bull# you friend, but at the same time I do not expect people to take my word as gospel.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you.

While the democrats have their problems, and certainly don't represent the working class these days, republicans are marching towards destruction of the ideals the U.S. was founded upon.

If anything, this latest middle class tax fiasco, where for a short extension, mortgage taxes were increased, on order to avoid raising taxes on average people, so taxes were just shifted around, and republicans proved that not only are they not for smaller government, they are all for making average people pay for corporate welfare.

Both parties are not the same, that is just a lie spread by republicans under all their various names these days, to discourage people from doing anything about the republican parties determination to destroy the U.S.. Meanwhile, those republicans talking about how there is no difference between parties continue to support their party with full abandon.

Why did Obama fill his cabinet with Wall Street insiders and investment banker types. I can only speculate. Maybe to keep his enemies closer. Maybe because under the circumstances, he had no choice. Personally, I don't think Obama has much power, and that the exchange of power didn't really happen this time around, and maybe not for the last several presidencies.

Conservatives/republicans are the willing servants of corporations and the aristocratic establishment. Democrats are much more reluctant servants, and would rather be pursuing their own ideals.

Democrats are much more willing to write and enforce laws against white collar crime, and to stop using U.S. middle class taxes to support the global corporate empire.

The obvious goal of republicans is to strip away any part of government that protects average citizens rights, and tax the people to pay for the management of the global corporate empire.

Time to stop ignoring the obvious.

reply to post by poet1b


Thanks for taking the time to respond. For me, it has taken a long time to accept that both sides gain their views based on the environment that they are brought up from (and to some extent their religous upbringing). Smaller counties, towns etc.. are mostly Republican and larger metropolitan areas are mostly Democrats. When you really break that down and what it means you will see the relationship between certain belief systems and how they coincide with geographics.

But guess what? None of that matters because we aren't speaking about the everyday people, we are talking about "representatives" which are a gross exaggeration of the people they are representing. They play that role only to fit in and to be elected of course.

A good portion (larger than average Americans) of people that go into politics are motivated by power and greed. The others that go into the profession that are motivated by the dream of making a difference see their hopes go up in flames once they realize who really runs the show and just how impossible it is making a difference by themselves. If they stick around, then they play ball (and their pockets fatten) or they leave office and/or get voted out by smear campaigns.

This of course isn't anything new to you I am sure so what's the point in mentioning it I bet you are asking. The point is that no one party holds a monopoly on corruption, greed and power lust. You can take the mentality of the "lesser of two evils" but that in it's self is an admission that your pick is by process of elimination, still evil. It's the good cop/bad cop routine, and it works. Bad cop (Repubs) comes in gets in your face, gives you a bruise or two and has your feathers all ruffled. Good cop comes in offers you a coffee and a cig and sweet talks your ear. Which is worse? Both are of course because they both have the same goal but play the role established to them to give you a sense of contrast. Don't get fooled by the good cop routine when you yourself know very well both work for the precinct.

Both parties are not the same.

A little bit more proof of this, as democrats ask for a vote to extend payroll tax cuts for the middle class and republican speaker of the house adjournes the meeting, the cameras close and that is all she wrote.

Yeah both parties are the same. Keep telling yourself that lie!

Originally posted by truthRconsequences357
The Democrats a moving us in a new direction and at this point we should not stop them...because sometimes it takes more than four years for some people to wake up.

Our New Direction USSA

DAMF

edit on 22-12-2011 by truthRconsequences357 because: DAMF

The hammer and sickle does not belong on the socialist flag, it belongs on the communist flag.

AFAIK the socialist flag has a red background with a yellow star on it.

And that site is as bogus/commical as it gets.

I would expect donald trump to read such bs and believe it!

Question for you: If Democrats held all the seats in congress and senate, held the presidency and had all members on the Supreme Court would that really change things? I am not talking about cosmetic minor changes, I am talking about real change. Monetary policy, environmental policy, and foreign policy just to point out a few would all remain the same.

The Republicians are certainly hypocrits that's for sure within the subject of tax breaks, because they cry and stomp about keeping ridiculous rich tax cuts and talk the talk about people keeping their money, but when it comes to the middle class they balk. Yes I know and I find that quite laughable.

But really since 2006 what have the democrats done that is any thing different from Bush? We are still in bogus wars, our civil liberties are still crumbling, the rich are still getting richer, people are still being detained without access to lawyers and tortured, we are still threatening war with other countries, we are still giving kick backs to wall street and are still allowing the Fed and bankers to rob us blind. The republicans go all in, the democrats have the decency to make the experience at little easier by adding some vasoline, still doesn't change the fact that they are sodomizing us.

Why do I even care to make a point? Keep rooting for your "team".

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


I comprehend your frustration and probably share it. If the democrats had a potus, senate and scotus then I assure you the quantity of vasoline would be increased, since the FED(BIG bankers) still have ultimate control of american and global policy, and still have the final word on everything.

Humanity has been a slave to big business and banks for a long time but only recently have we been realising the truth. Change is slow because the inertia of human ignorance overcomes true illumination. Those with the power to create laws have all the money to do so.

Big steps in the correct direction for non-corporate entities would be to legally re-define the first amendment to not include donations as free speach, then instittute a 100% voting tax and ban donations above a pre-defined amount. Then ban the Federal Reserve and force currency issuance to be a treasury requirement, thus lowering taxation all around.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


That is a bit too hypothetical to me, but you can always look up what happened under Clinton and the 103rd congress, and then compare that to the 108th congress under GW.

Aftermath of the 103 congress was the longest period of economic growth in U.S. history, and a large drop in deficit spending, and yes Al Gore does deserve some credit for passing legislation that enabled the development of the internet.

While the 108th under GW lead us into a mortgage bubble, and run away deficit spending.

The historic record does show a clear difference.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

You again? Haven't I embarrassed you enough?

You embarrass me? with what? lies, deception, and the backing of a few ignorant people?...

The only one embarrassing himself everytime, more so with his so-called "line" is you...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
The Republicans and Democrats of today are not the same groups that lived a century ago as there roles were reversed and another century back were 2 sides of the same party fighting the Federalists and The Whigs! Hence why the first like 8 POTUS weren't either! You want a return to Constitutional ideals right? Get rid of both the jackasses and the pachyderms!

Meanwhile corruption has taken root in both parties thanks to "progressive democrats" what it means to be a Republican and what the Republic of the United States should stand for has never changed. It can be found in a document called the United States Constitution, and other documents written by the founding fathers.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Systematic deregulation under Reagan, 41, Clinton and 43 all led us to where we are at. This wasn't done overnight and will not be undone overnight.

The over-regulation done by democrats, and Wilson on all businesses in the 1910s, plus the fact that they gave the economic reigns of this nation to the banker elites caused the depression and then the recession of the 1920s-1930s and has been causing since then all depressions and recessions since the Feds have wanted to consolidate more power for them and for their buddies.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Look at the chart from this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let's look at some facts shall we? :
www.usdebtclock.org...
Year - Operating and overall debts (in trillions)
2000 - $5.67 - $27.09
2004 - $7.58 - $37.73
2008 - $10.66 - $50.87
2011 - $15.14 - $56.39

You were saying? Who doubled both the operating and overall debts? That's right 43 and Company! If we would've followed to a "T" the Clinton plan we would've had an operating surplus and would've been near debt free by now but the fact 43 put 2 wars on the card somehow doesn't matter?

First of all, I don't know what the heck you are trying to prove with the above since all this corruption can be traced back to one party, and to "PROGRESS".

Second of all, that chart you gave is exagerated. I don't know where you get the second numbers, but those can't be found from the source where all that data was supposedly taken from...

www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Third of all...



See the very large raise from around 2009-2010?

Not to mention the trillions of dollars the Feds supposedly lost, again under Democrat's watch, and even Obama himself claimed they don't know where that money went...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Hook, line, sinker, SUNK!

Some people actually think they sound smart or it validates their dellusions if they keep repeating the above...

Don't get off your meds please...

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
Question for you: If Democrats held all the seats in congress and senate, held the presidency and had all members on the Supreme Court would that really change things? I am not talking about cosmetic minor changes, I am talking about real change. Monetary policy, environmental policy, and foreign policy just to point out a few would all remain the same.
...

Oh boy... Don't you know this has happened SEVERAL times, and every time it ended up the same way?

You actually think that democrats are so good for the people?

As some other members and I have been tyring to remind leftwingers like yourself, progressive democrats, under a democrat president in 1913 passed MAJOR legislation which included the Federal Reserve Act, or what people call The Feds, The IRS as it exists today with it's PROGRESSIVE taxes, and other legislation and even regulations that stopped the economic growth of the United States in general and gave power to a few people.

Until not too long ago DEMOCRATS were a majority, again, in the House, and the Sentate, not to mention that we have another PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT as President, and what exactly have they been doing?... You tell us...